Cavs focused on Posey?

[Vermont Green]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

[fan33]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now this IS a good point, which will be paying off throughout next year too, however there is revenue sharing back to the league and also the issue that the TD Banknorth Garden is not owned by the team, so there is another cost outlay...

I don't think the ownership has been at all tight, but I do believe they now would like to be prudent and gather in from their sizable investment while still seeing if it did pay off. Next years broadcast revenues and viewership #s from advertisers will be the real test for the payday returns for ownership, IMO...

In any event this press release doesn't tell us anything we already didn't know. If the Cavs want James that will be a 5 or 4 year deal @ 5mil. ea. , which he is entitled to. I can understand D.A. sticking to a 3 year offer, as much as I would love to have James return, and he still may.

[cordobes]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

Curiously, you're the one who wants to copy the nicks: use the non-Bird or Bird exceptions to resign your own free-agents and then use the MLE to add other players. I agree with your rationale, but that would increase significantly our payroll.

The problem of not signing Posey with the MLE and split it in another players is: what other players? Anthony Johnson and Francisco Elson? They aren't even better than Cassell and PJ.

[Jon]

I think this fiscal responsibility is overrated by some on this board.  We're not the Red Sox and we're not the Patriots.  Because of the nature of their leagues, fiscal responsibility has more incentives.  In the case of the Red Sox where they have no salary cap to work with, if they let a guy like Johnny Damon walk, they can go out and sign another superstar easily.  That's not the case with the Celtics.  Yes, they'll have the midlevel to use on someone else, but who can take Posey's place for next year?  And don't give the splitting the midlevel B.S.; quantity is not superior to quality in the NBA.  Only 5 players can play at a time. 

In the case of the NFL, you need 22 starters plus special teams and backups to be effective.  You only need 5 starters and 3-4 solid backups to be good in the NBA.  To make a stand on one player's salary makes sense when he's just 1 of 30-40 players who matter.  It's a bigger deal with James, when he's 1 of 8-9 players that matter.

Furthermore, when the Sox and Pats have taken a stand and not paid players, they've had the luxury of time; they could afford not to win it all the following year if they could come back and win it all the year after.  The Celtics don't have that luxury. 

Right now if it's the difference between 3 and 4 years, Danny is a fool to pass on Posey.  The C's won't have cap space anyway once they re-sign Rondo, so they might as well bring James back to make a run at #18,

[bucknersrevenge]

Cle is currently committed to 9 players for a total of about $77M.  Those 9 don't include West or Gibson both of whom you would expect they will sign.  If they sign Posey, West, Gibson, plus a couple of rookies or FA, they will be pushing $90M.  As I said in another post, if another team wants to be financially irresponsible and sign Posey to 4 years at $5.6M per, that is fine but we shouldn't match it just to match it.

You're right. If Cleveland wins the title, I will feel much better knowing that the Grousbeck's profit margin is higher. Thank heavens! They need to remodel their yachts!

I don't think many people are talking about saving money, they are talking about cap space and flexibility in 2010 and  2011.  This is why the C's don't want to commit to anyone for longterm, let alone Posey, who is on the wrong side of 30.

How will we have cap space and flexibility in 2010 even not signing Posey or anyone else?

possibly 16-17mil depending on what the actual cap number is at.

[Bankshot]

I think this fiscal responsibility is overrated by some on this board.  We're not the Red Sox and we're not the Patriots.  Because of the nature of their leagues, fiscal responsibility has more incentives.  In the case of the Red Sox where they have no salary cap to work with, if they let a guy like Johnny Damon walk, they can go out and sign another superstar easily.  That's not the case with the Celtics.  Yes, they'll have the midlevel to use on someone else, but who can take Posey's place for next year?  And don't give the splitting the midlevel B.S.; quantity is not superior to quality in the NBA.  Only 5 players can play at a time. 

In the case of the NFL, you need 22 starters plus special teams and backups to be effective.  You only need 5 starters and 3-4 solid backups to be good in the NBA.  To make a stand on one player's salary makes sense when he's just 1 of 30-40 players who matter.  It's a bigger deal with James, when he's 1 of 8-9 players that matter.

Furthermore, when the Sox and Pats have taken a stand and not paid players, they've had the luxury of time; they could afford not to win it all the following year if they could come back and win it all the year after.  The Celtics don't have that luxury. 

Right now if it's the difference between 3 and 4 years, Danny is a fool to pass on Posey.  The C's won't have cap space anyway once they re-sign Rondo, so they might as well bring James back to make a run at #18,

Good post.  I totally agree.

[wahz]

Cle is currently committed to 9 players for a total of about $77M.  Those 9 don't include West or Gibson both of whom you would expect they will sign.  If they sign Posey, West, Gibson, plus a couple of rookies or FA, they will be pushing $90M.  As I said in another post, if another team wants to be financially irresponsible and sign Posey to 4 years at $5.6M per, that is fine but we shouldn't match it just to match it.

You're right. If Cleveland wins the title, I will feel much better knowing that the Grousbeck's profit margin is higher. Thank heavens! They need to remodel their yachts!

tp for you. These discussions on freeing cap space 3-4 years from now are completely insane. We have a team that can win now and we want to tweak it to make sure we don't overspend now, which so far would amount to a few million a year by the way?

Posey never was going to break the bank. He is one of our most important players. He wants probably 4 years to paid on a scale that clearly makes sense based on what the going rates have been the last 24 hours. If he has two more solid years and then falls apart is it going to kill us for the final two years? No. Then EVERYONE is off the books soon after anyway.

Bottom line: the team can be kept intact by overspending for Posey in 2011-12. Do it.We may well have room to maneuver under the cap before then.

[cordobes]

Cle is currently committed to 9 players for a total of about $77M.  Those 9 don't include West or Gibson both of whom you would expect they will sign.  If they sign Posey, West, Gibson, plus a couple of rookies or FA, they will be pushing $90M.  As I said in another post, if another team wants to be financially irresponsible and sign Posey to 4 years at $5.6M per, that is fine but we shouldn't match it just to match it.

You're right. If Cleveland wins the title, I will feel much better knowing that the Grousbeck's profit margin is higher. Thank heavens! They need to remodel their yachts!

I don't think many people are talking about saving money, they are talking about cap space and flexibility in 2010 and  2011.  This is why the C's don't want to commit to anyone for longterm, let alone Posey, who is on the wrong side of 30.

How will we have cap space and flexibility in 2010 even not signing Posey or anyone else?

possibly 16-17mil depending on what the actual cap number is at.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on that.

13) Looking at the above chart, it looks like the Celtics only have around $49 million in salaries committed for 2010.  If the cap goes up to around $65 million, does that mean they can spend $16 million on free agents?  Could they then resign Ray Allen with their Bird rights?

No and no.  Surprising to many, free agents continue to count against a team's salary cap until they're either signed or renounced.  This is called a "cap hold".  Free agents essentially count against the cap at a figure greater than their previous salary.

The amount of these cap holds varies significantly; for actual percentages, see here.  For purposes of the Celtics, Ray Allen would have a cap hold in excess of $20 million.  While the team could renounce Ray, if they did so they would only be able to pay him the minimum salary.

Of even more significance is the cap hold of Rajon Rondo.  As a restricted free agent, he carries a cap hold of 300% of his previous salary, or approximately $8 million.  Thus, under the above scenario, the Celtics actual cap room would be approximately $8 million, rather than the $16 million anticipated.  Further, there would be additional salary slots or cap holds for any other players on the roster.  Long story short, we don't have any cap room in 2010-11, even if we renounce Ray.

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3578&Itemid=189

[Vermont Green]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

Curiously, you're the one who wants to copy the nicks: use the non-Bird or Bird exceptions to resign your own free-agents and then use the MLE to add other players. I agree with your rationale, but that would increase significantly our payroll.

The problem of not signing Posey with the MLE and split it in another players is: what other players? Anthony Johnson and Francisco Elson? They aren't even better than Cassell and PJ.

The ideal situation would be to hold on to the MLE to keep it available.  I am not suggesting that you spend it unless a good value is there or if you discover a need later on.  For example, an injury could force our hand to sign someone mid season (as we did with Cassell and PJ this year although without any injury involved).  If the MLE is gone, all you have is the league minimum.  If you still have the MLE in your back pocket, bingo, you have the flexibility to do what you need or to grab a really good value that may come along.  The same logic goes for the number of years too.  If we commit the MLE to Posey for 4 years, that means for 4 years we have nothing but the league minimum to add players (FA).  4 years of the MLE is a lot to commit to Posey.  This year or at least right now, maybe there is not a good investment of the MLE but by mid season or next year, who knows.  Give it to Posey for 4 years and that is it.  This is all just fan blog babble but my opinion is that it is too much to commit to Posey.  We are going to have other needs and opportunities over the next 4 years but I don't have a crystal ball.  Fans tend to be more rash than GM's (at least the good ones).  I don't think Danny is going to be rash and go all in for Posey but who knows.

[Brickowski]

You can use the MLE every year.  The Celtics will have a new MLE next July, no matter how many years Posey gets.  And if they don't use it this year, they lose it. 

You didn't think the players' union would agree to something silly like tying up the MLE for 5 years, did you?

[bucknersrevenge]

Cle is currently committed to 9 players for a total of about $77M.  Those 9 don't include West or Gibson both of whom you would expect they will sign.  If they sign Posey, West, Gibson, plus a couple of rookies or FA, they will be pushing $90M.  As I said in another post, if another team wants to be financially irresponsible and sign Posey to 4 years at $5.6M per, that is fine but we shouldn't match it just to match it.

You're right. If Cleveland wins the title, I will feel much better knowing that the Grousbeck's profit margin is higher. Thank heavens! They need to remodel their yachts!

I don't think many people are talking about saving money, they are talking about cap space and flexibility in 2010 and  2011.  This is why the C's don't want to commit to anyone for longterm, let alone Posey, who is on the wrong side of 30.

How will we have cap space and flexibility in 2010 even not signing Posey or anyone else?

possibly 16-17mil depending on what the actual cap number is at.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on that.

13) Looking at the above chart, it looks like the Celtics only have around $49 million in salaries committed for 2010.  If the cap goes up to around $65 million, does that mean they can spend $16 million on free agents?  Could they then resign Ray Allen with their Bird rights?

No and no.  Surprising to many, free agents continue to count against a team's salary cap until they're either signed or renounced.  This is called a "cap hold".  Free agents essentially count against the cap at a figure greater than their previous salary.

The amount of these cap holds varies significantly; for actual percentages, see here.  For purposes of the Celtics, Ray Allen would have a cap hold in excess of $20 million.  While the team could renounce Ray, if they did so they would only be able to pay him the minimum salary.

Of even more significance is the cap hold of Rajon Rondo.  As a restricted free agent, he carries a cap hold of 300% of his previous salary, or approximately $8 million.  Thus, under the above scenario, the Celtics actual cap room would be approximately $8 million, rather than the $16 million anticipated.  Further, there would be additional salary slots or cap holds for any other players on the roster.  Long story short, we don't have any cap room in 2010-11, even if we renounce Ray.

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3578&Itemid=189

ahh..thanks for the clarification. i stand corrected.

[cordobes]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

Curiously, you're the one who wants to copy the nicks: use the non-Bird or Bird exceptions to resign your own free-agents and then use the MLE to add other players. I agree with your rationale, but that would increase significantly our payroll.

The problem of not signing Posey with the MLE and split it in another players is: what other players? Anthony Johnson and Francisco Elson? They aren't even better than Cassell and PJ.

The ideal situation would be to hold on to the MLE to keep it available.  I am not suggesting that you spend it unless a good value is there or if you discover a need later on.  For example, an injury could force our hand to sign someone mid season (as we did with Cassell and PJ this year although without any injury involved).  If the MLE is gone, all you have is the league minimum.  If you still have the MLE in your back pocket, bingo, you have the flexibility to do what you need or to grab a really good value that may come along.  The same logic goes for the number of years too.  If we commit the MLE to Posey for 4 years, that means for 4 years we have nothing but the league minimum to add players (FA).  4 years of the MLE is a lot to commit to Posey.  This year or at least right now, maybe there is not a good investment of the MLE but by mid season or next year, who knows.  Give it to Posey for 4 years and that is it.  This is all just fan blog babble but my opinion is that it is too much to commit to Posey.  We are going to have other needs and opportunities over the next 4 years but I don't have a crystal ball.  Fans tend to be more rash than GM's (at least the good ones).  I don't think Danny is going to be rash and go all in for Posey but who knows.

Uh? You have a MLE every season... If you give Posey the MLE for 4 years, you can give the MLE to another player next season, and the following one, etc.

[bucknersrevenge]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

Curiously, you're the one who wants to copy the nicks: use the non-Bird or Bird exceptions to resign your own free-agents and then use the MLE to add other players. I agree with your rationale, but that would increase significantly our payroll.

The problem of not signing Posey with the MLE and split it in another players is: what other players? Anthony Johnson and Francisco Elson? They aren't even better than Cassell and PJ.

The ideal situation would be to hold on to the MLE to keep it available.  I am not suggesting that you spend it unless a good value is there or if you discover a need later on.  For example, an injury could force our hand to sign someone mid season (as we did with Cassell and PJ this year although without any injury involved).  If the MLE is gone, all you have is the league minimum.  If you still have the MLE in your back pocket, bingo, you have the flexibility to do what you need or to grab a really good value that may come along.  The same logic goes for the number of years too.  If we commit the MLE to Posey for 4 years, that means for 4 years we have nothing but the league minimum to add players (FA).  4 years of the MLE is a lot to commit to Posey.  This year or at least right now, maybe there is not a good investment of the MLE but by mid season or next year, who knows.  Give it to Posey for 4 years and that is it.  This is all just fan blog babble but my opinion is that it is too much to commit to Posey.  We are going to have other needs and opportunities over the next 4 years but I don't have a crystal ball.  Fans tend to be more rash than GM's (at least the good ones).  I don't think Danny is going to be rash and go all in for Posey but who knows.

Uh? You have a MLE every season... If you give Posey the MLE for 4 years, you can give the MLE to another player next season, and the following one, etc.

we could...and then pretty soon we could be the knicks too.

[cordobes]

How much total gross revenue do you think the Celtics take in? Include TV deals, merchandise, post-season games....everything.

Do you really think that Posey on the books for $7 million in 2011 is going to "hurt the team financially down the road"?

The Knicks have had $100 million+ payrolls the last few years with no playoffs until they finally started getting some stupid contracts off the books.

Now there is an excellent idea, let's be like the Knicks.

It is not just about total dollars.  To sign Posey to the MLE uses it up completely.  If they can get Posey for the Non-Bird exemption, then they can use the MLE on one or two other needed components.  You only get a few bullets when you are over the cap so you need to get the best value possible for those chances.

I think Posey at 4 years, $5.6M is not the best use of that money over the 4 years.  I also don't think Cle will spend that and if they do, maybe they lose Gibson or West.  You can't just sign whoever you want.

Curiously, you're the one who wants to copy the nicks: use the non-Bird or Bird exceptions to resign your own free-agents and then use the MLE to add other players. I agree with your rationale, but that would increase significantly our payroll.

The problem of not signing Posey with the MLE and split it in another players is: what other players? Anthony Johnson and Francisco Elson? They aren't even better than Cassell and PJ.

The ideal situation would be to hold on to the MLE to keep it available.  I am not suggesting that you spend it unless a good value is there or if you discover a need later on.  For example, an injury could force our hand to sign someone mid season (as we did with Cassell and PJ this year although without any injury involved).  If the MLE is gone, all you have is the league minimum.  If you still have the MLE in your back pocket, bingo, you have the flexibility to do what you need or to grab a really good value that may come along.  The same logic goes for the number of years too.  If we commit the MLE to Posey for 4 years, that means for 4 years we have nothing but the league minimum to add players (FA).  4 years of the MLE is a lot to commit to Posey.  This year or at least right now, maybe there is not a good investment of the MLE but by mid season or next year, who knows.  Give it to Posey for 4 years and that is it.  This is all just fan blog babble but my opinion is that it is too much to commit to Posey.  We are going to have other needs and opportunities over the next 4 years but I don't have a crystal ball.  Fans tend to be more rash than GM's (at least the good ones).  I don't think Danny is going to be rash and go all in for Posey but who knows.

Uh? You have a MLE every season... If you give Posey the MLE for 4 years, you can give the MLE to another player next season, and the following one, etc.

we could...and then pretty soon we could be the knicks too.

I was just saying we could, not that we should. What's your point exactly? That we shouldn't use the MLE this season?

[CoachBo]

Cle is currently committed to 9 players for a total of about $77M.  Those 9 don't include West or Gibson both of whom you would expect they will sign.  If they sign Posey, West, Gibson, plus a couple of rookies or FA, they will be pushing $90M.  As I said in another post, if another team wants to be financially irresponsible and sign Posey to 4 years at $5.6M per, that is fine but we shouldn't match it just to match it.

You're right. If Cleveland wins the title, I will feel much better knowing that the Grousbeck's profit margin is higher. Thank heavens! They need to remodel their yachts!

Make that two TPs.