WEEI: Unnamed team willing to offer Posey 4th year

[Roy Hobbs]

like i said in a PREVIOUS post Roy.

if i are arguing that we should only sign Posey for one season, then i think it is fair to be using post Title "weight" as a criticism.

but if you are in the "three years - yes. four years - no." camp, then i think you are just rationalizing. because if you were genuinely worried about what shape Posey is going to be in next season, then you wouldn't want to sign him for three years.

my problem with people using "weight" as a concern for Posey is with people who are comfortable with a three year deal but not a four....

Great.  Now just don't put words in the mouths of our members, and I'll be fine.

[winsomme]

like i said in a PREVIOUS post Roy.

if i are arguing that we should only sign Posey for one season, then i think it is fair to be using post Title "weight" as a criticism.

but if you are in the "three years - yes. four years - no." camp, then i think you are just rationalizing. because if you were genuinely worried about what shape Posey is going to be in next season, then you wouldn't want to sign him for three years.

my problem with people using "weight" as a concern for Posey is with people who are comfortable with a three year deal but not a four....

Great.  Now just don't put words in the mouths of our members, and I'll be fine.

i don't think i did that.....

[nickagneta]

Ainge has a value limit and he's not going to chase Posey.  It is clear that Ainge wants to be competitive long term.  

Red Sox fans were eventually "trained" to not get attatched to popular aging players.  Celtic fans may have to go through that process now, and learn not to stomp and kick if the team doesn't go all out to re-sign a popular but aging player.

i think that some people misunderstand this "value" strategy.

"value" is not only determined by the player himself, but also the availability of qualified replacements.

the Pats were willing to lose Vinatieri not only because they didn't want to spend the money, but also because they were confident that they could bring in someone who could perform well at the job.

the Red Sox were willing to let go of Johnny Damon and Pedro because they felt confident that they could get players to fill their roles. they have paid Varitek because he is not easy to replace, not because they didn't have concerns about him getting older....just like they did with Pedro and Damon.

somthe question about Posey for most of his supporters here is not simply about bringing back Posey, but also  considering WHO the replacement is.

you guys IMO are only looking at one half of the equation. because from where i am standing, who takes Posey's minutes next season is as important a consideration in determining how much to offer Posey as is who he will be as a player when he is 36...

and i think it is pretty clear that

I think you are way off base here with the value equaling the availability of replacement.

The Red Sox and Patriots have a value system set up on aging players that are based on the law of diminishing returns and they will only go so far on a contract either or both financially or length wise before the value on the diminishing return does not equal the expected production value return.

Hence, they get tons of data for performance levels of similar players with similar situations and use that data to set up a model of expectations that will be diminsihing over time. They place a fair market value on that and will spend to that dollar value and/or contract length amount and no further.

The replacement is irrelevant because in most cases the replacement is not a given but a variable factor that is now based not on diminishing returns but projected accumulating returns.

Damon was replaced for significantly less money by Coco whom the Red Sox projected to have increasingly productive returns, it did not happen but the money saved was then spent elsewhere shoring up contracts of players who's production was still projected to increase(Ortiz and others).

Vinitieri was replaced by Gostkowski who exceeded projected output and became a high value position as again the money saved went towards shoring up players who needed to be taken care of as their projected future value and return were still rising(offensive linemen, Asante Samuel later on, etc). The Patriots meanwhile have reeped the benefits of no loss of production while retaining the $2 million saved and investing it elswhere to pay long term productive assets.

This is the economic reality of receiving value and it has nothing to do with replacement availability. The money the Celtic save in later years by not giving Posey the money and length he wants could beused towards ensuring Rondo and Perk are tied up long term without severely effecting the long term contractual flexibilty of the team as they try to turn their three max contracts into new viable superstars to carry on championship contendership.

It is a brilliant way to run not only a business but apparently a sports franchise as Boston has become titletown as more of their franchises adopt this philosophy.

Three years even at max has good value for the Celtics. More than that it is a loser contract and should be avoided and if Danny wants the reason why all he has to do is look down at the end of the bench and see the 15th player on the roster costing his team $6 million this year to do virtually nothing but ensure enough bodies at practice in case of injuries.

[Chris]

People keep bringing up Posey's "weight" violation with the Heat. That was absolutely ridiculous. Riley's body fat percentage requirement was a joke. When they suspended Posey and Walker, Posey had 9% body fat and Walker 11% . Even Antoine's wasn't a real big deal. When you bring up these kind of comments you are insinuating that Posey is a slacker and not a hard worker. We have never heard once that he didn't bring it all the time. We don't know what he did in practice, but the man surely is not and has never been fat. Target something realistic if you are going to bring up comments to rationalize not giving him a fourth year...

i agree. TP.

using "weight" as a reason to not give Posey a 4th year is ridiculous.

personally, i don't agree with the salary structure reasoning either, but at least it has some merit.

How is posey's conditioning not a valid concern? Nearly all of Posey's effectiveness as a defender can be attributed to his length and athleticism. If Posey loses a step he's a much less effective defender. He's 31 now, so its not like he had anywhere to go but down. I don't think its a good reason to not sign him, but it should definitely be a factor when considering the entire picture. his coach gave him criteria to be filled, and Posey didn't fill it, thats got to matter somewhere in all this.

Ditto.  How many of us have followed Posey's career closely enough to know him well?  As much as people would love to think he's a super-motivated gym rat, were there any stories like that during the season?  I remember all the stories about Ray Allen, KG, Rondo, etc., but to my knowledge Posey has never been cited as somebody who is constantly working out.  He could be doing those things; we just don't know.

Obviously, he performed this season, but many players perform well in a contract year.  The last time he was on a team coming off of a championship, his coach questioned his conditioning and his failure to meet goals set for him.  Obviously, that Riley was willing to suspend somebody who is seen as a "team leader" suggests that he wasn't happy about something.

We know what Posey did for us for one season.  He filled his role very well, and I would like to see him back.  However, the longer you extend his contract, the more you have to worry about other issues.  Amongst those are the natural aging process, which can presumably be accelerated or decelerated by a player's fitness.  If Posey isn't going to make every possible effort to get himself in tip-top playing condition (something none of us know for certain one way or the other) then at least it's a caution flag.

again, if this is really your feelings, then why are you okay signing him for three seasons?

Well, I can't speak for Roy, but as someone who thinks 3 years is ideal, and 4 is a much bigger risk, here is my reasoning... The C's salary structure for the next 3 years pretty much dictates that they will not have significant cap space at all without some major maneuvering.  However, in the 4th year (2011), they are potentially looking at enough cap space to offer someone a max contract once Pierce comes off the books.  If they have Posey on the books for $7-$8 million that year, that could be the difference between us being able to "reload", or being stuck without quite enough room.  If Posey is still producing to warrant an $8 million contract, that is one thing, but if there are legitimate doubts that he would be, then it is a problem.

chris, like i said in an earlier post, while i don't personally agree with the salary concerns about offering Posey an MLE deal, i don't recognize that the concerns are legit.

but using "weight" as a concern to not want go to four years seems like a rationalization to me because if someone was really concerned about his "weight" next season, i don't see why they would be willing to give him a three year deal.

I think weight is just one reason, and it was just cited as an example. 

You also can look at his age.  I personally think he is worth the MLE next year, but anything more than that would be overpaying him.  And since he is on the other side of 30, common sense would tell you that he is not going to be improving, so he would likely be getting further and further from good value each year. 

Also, he has had an injury history.  Although he hasn't had major injuries, he also has not had many full seasons.  Those are the type of small injuries that can add up as you get older.

And the weight comes in when you start questioning whether he is the type of player who will continue to do the extra work needed to stay at the top of his game, once he gets the big pay day.  The suspension (whether you agree with it or not) provides reasonable doubt about whether he might not be the type of workout warrior that you generally need to be to continue to improve into your 30's.  I think too many people look at his hustle on the floor, and his warrior attitude, and assume that means that he is just as hard a worker when it comes to taking care of himself...but unfortunately, those two are completely separate.

When you add those together, you get a player who is a risk to become significantly less productive over the next few years. 

Like I said, I believe it is worth the risk for 3 years (although ownership, who pays him, might think otherwise), but once you get into that 4th year, I think the risk to the teams ability to continue to compete grows exponentially.

[rondofan1255]

I think we have two more years of serious contention, but who knows if Rondo really improves (same with other players).

3-years sound the best, and knowing how many mistakes teams make, I think management is trying to do their best to gauge this situation.

[winsomme]

Ainge has a value limit and he's not going to chase Posey.  It is clear that Ainge wants to be competitive long term.  

Red Sox fans were eventually "trained" to not get attatched to popular aging players.  Celtic fans may have to go through that process now, and learn not to stomp and kick if the team doesn't go all out to re-sign a popular but aging player.

i think that some people misunderstand this "value" strategy.

"value" is not only determined by the player himself, but also the availability of qualified replacements.

the Pats were willing to lose Vinatieri not only because they didn't want to spend the money, but also because they were confident that they could bring in someone who could perform well at the job.

the Red Sox were willing to let go of Johnny Damon and Pedro because they felt confident that they could get players to fill their roles. they have paid Varitek because he is not easy to replace, not because they didn't have concerns about him getting older....just like they did with Pedro and Damon.

somthe question about Posey for most of his supporters here is not simply about bringing back Posey, but also  considering WHO the replacement is.

you guys IMO are only looking at one half of the equation. because from where i am standing, who takes Posey's minutes next season is as important a consideration in determining how much to offer Posey as is who he will be as a player when he is 36...

and i think it is pretty clear that

I think you are way off base here with the value equaling the availability of replacement.

The Red Sox and Patriots have a value system set up on aging players that are based on the law of diminishing returns and they will only go so far on a contract either or both financially or length wise before the value on the diminishing return does not equal the expected production value return.

Hence, they get tons of data for performance levels of similar players with similar situations and use that data to set up a model of expectations that will be diminsihing over time. They place a fair market value on that and will spend to that dollar value and/or contract length amount and no further.

The replacement is irrelevant because in most cases the replacement is not a given but a variable factor that is now based not on diminishing returns but projected accumulating returns.

Damon was replaced for significantly less money by Coco whom the Red Sox projected to have increasingly productive returns, it did not happen but the money saved was then spent elsewhere shoring up contracts of players who's production was still projected to increase(Ortiz and others).

Vinitieri was replaced by Gostkowski who exceeded projected output and became a high value position as again the money saved went towards shoring up players who needed to be taken care of as their projected future value and return were still rising(offensive linemen, Asante Samuel later on, etc). The Patriots meanwhile have reeped the benefits of no loss of production while retaining the $2 million saved and investing it elswhere to pay long term productive assets.

This is the economic reality of receiving value and it has nothing to do with replacement availability. The money the Celtic save in later years by not giving Posey the money and length he wants could beused towards ensuring Rondo and Perk are tied up long term without severely effecting the long term contractual flexibilty of the team as they try to turn their three max contracts into new viable superstars to carry on championship contendership.

It is a brilliant way to run not only a business but apparently a sports franchise as Boston has become titletown as more of their franchises adopt this philosophy.

Three years even at max has good value for the Celtics. More than that it is a loser contract and should be avoided and if Danny wants the reason why all he has to do is look down at the end of the bench and see the 15th player on the roster costing his team $6 million this year to do virtually nothing but ensure enough bodies at practice in case of injuries.

i totally disagree.

the "value" system is much more dynamic than that.

just look at how the Pats filled the Receiver position the past couple of seasons.....

for the Sox, Varitek is a good example....you don't think that they were worried about signing Varitek to a four year deal when he was what 32?  heck, they probably will sign him again at 36.....you don't think who his replacement would be is important in them deciding how much to offer him?

[dooyork]

Can someone please tell me again, why do we care how good Posey is when he's 36?  Because by that time, the window has probably closed on the big 3 anyway.  Give him whatever it takes to get him back, so we can keep this group together and try to repeat.  

When the big 3 are no longer elite players, I would prefer that the Celtics rebuild and endure a couple crappy seasons, instead of trying to be decent enough for a playoff spot but not to win it all.  The model for rebuilding should be 1970-71 and 1978-79, and not 1992-4 (which stretched on for 15 years).  If our team stinks when this group is done, terrific, we start from scratch.  But for now, keep the team together.  Go for being excellent right now.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ainge has a value limit and he's not going to chase Posey.  It is clear that Ainge wants to be competitive long term.  

Red Sox fans were eventually "trained" to not get attatched to popular aging players.  Celtic fans may have to go through that process now, and learn not to stomp and kick if the team doesn't go all out to re-sign a popular but aging player.

i think that some people misunderstand this "value" strategy.

"value" is not only determined by the player himself, but also the availability of qualified replacements.

the Pats were willing to lose Vinatieri not only because they didn't want to spend the money, but also because they were confident that they could bring in someone who could perform well at the job.

the Red Sox were willing to let go of Johnny Damon and Pedro because they felt confident that they could get players to fill their roles. they have paid Varitek because he is not easy to replace, not because they didn't have concerns about him getting older....just like they did with Pedro and Damon.

somthe question about Posey for most of his supporters here is not simply about bringing back Posey, but also  considering WHO the replacement is.

you guys IMO are only looking at one half of the equation. because from where i am standing, who takes Posey's minutes next season is as important a consideration in determining how much to offer Posey as is who he will be as a player when he is 36...

and i think it is pretty clear that

I think you are way off base here with the value equaling the availability of replacement.

The Red Sox and Patriots have a value system set up on aging players that are based on the law of diminishing returns and they will only go so far on a contract either or both financially or length wise before the value on the diminishing return does not equal the expected production value return.

Hence, they get tons of data for performance levels of similar players with similar situations and use that data to set up a model of expectations that will be diminsihing over time. They place a fair market value on that and will spend to that dollar value and/or contract length amount and no further.

The replacement is irrelevant because in most cases the replacement is not a given but a variable factor that is now based not on diminishing returns but projected accumulating returns.

Damon was replaced for significantly less money by Coco whom the Red Sox projected to have increasingly productive returns, it did not happen but the money saved was then spent elsewhere shoring up contracts of players who's production was still projected to increase(Ortiz and others).

Vinitieri was replaced by Gostkowski who exceeded projected output and became a high value position as again the money saved went towards shoring up players who needed to be taken care of as their projected future value and return were still rising(offensive linemen, Asante Samuel later on, etc). The Patriots meanwhile have reeped the benefits of no loss of production while retaining the $2 million saved and investing it elswhere to pay long term productive assets.

This is the economic reality of receiving value and it has nothing to do with replacement availability. The money the Celtic save in later years by not giving Posey the money and length he wants could beused towards ensuring Rondo and Perk are tied up long term without severely effecting the long term contractual flexibilty of the team as they try to turn their three max contracts into new viable superstars to carry on championship contendership.

It is a brilliant way to run not only a business but apparently a sports franchise as Boston has become titletown as more of their franchises adopt this philosophy.

Three years even at max has good value for the Celtics. More than that it is a loser contract and should be avoided and if Danny wants the reason why all he has to do is look down at the end of the bench and see the 15th player on the roster costing his team $6 million this year to do virtually nothing but ensure enough bodies at practice in case of injuries.

Nice post, nick.  TP. 

[winsomme]

People keep bringing up Posey's "weight" violation with the Heat. That was absolutely ridiculous. Riley's body fat percentage requirement was a joke. When they suspended Posey and Walker, Posey had 9% body fat and Walker 11% . Even Antoine's wasn't a real big deal. When you bring up these kind of comments you are insinuating that Posey is a slacker and not a hard worker. We have never heard once that he didn't bring it all the time. We don't know what he did in practice, but the man surely is not and has never been fat. Target something realistic if you are going to bring up comments to rationalize not giving him a fourth year...

i agree. TP.

using "weight" as a reason to not give Posey a 4th year is ridiculous.

personally, i don't agree with the salary structure reasoning either, but at least it has some merit.

How is posey's conditioning not a valid concern? Nearly all of Posey's effectiveness as a defender can be attributed to his length and athleticism. If Posey loses a step he's a much less effective defender. He's 31 now, so its not like he had anywhere to go but down. I don't think its a good reason to not sign him, but it should definitely be a factor when considering the entire picture. his coach gave him criteria to be filled, and Posey didn't fill it, thats got to matter somewhere in all this.

Ditto.  How many of us have followed Posey's career closely enough to know him well?  As much as people would love to think he's a super-motivated gym rat, were there any stories like that during the season?  I remember all the stories about Ray Allen, KG, Rondo, etc., but to my knowledge Posey has never been cited as somebody who is constantly working out.  He could be doing those things; we just don't know.

Obviously, he performed this season, but many players perform well in a contract year.  The last time he was on a team coming off of a championship, his coach questioned his conditioning and his failure to meet goals set for him.  Obviously, that Riley was willing to suspend somebody who is seen as a "team leader" suggests that he wasn't happy about something.

We know what Posey did for us for one season.  He filled his role very well, and I would like to see him back.  However, the longer you extend his contract, the more you have to worry about other issues.  Amongst those are the natural aging process, which can presumably be accelerated or decelerated by a player's fitness.  If Posey isn't going to make every possible effort to get himself in tip-top playing condition (something none of us know for certain one way or the other) then at least it's a caution flag.

again, if this is really your feelings, then why are you okay signing him for three seasons?

Well, I can't speak for Roy, but as someone who thinks 3 years is ideal, and 4 is a much bigger risk, here is my reasoning... The C's salary structure for the next 3 years pretty much dictates that they will not have significant cap space at all without some major maneuvering.  However, in the 4th year (2011), they are potentially looking at enough cap space to offer someone a max contract once Pierce comes off the books.  If they have Posey on the books for $7-$8 million that year, that could be the difference between us being able to "reload", or being stuck without quite enough room.  If Posey is still producing to warrant an $8 million contract, that is one thing, but if there are legitimate doubts that he would be, then it is a problem.

chris, like i said in an earlier post, while i don't personally agree with the salary concerns about offering Posey an MLE deal, i don't recognize that the concerns are legit.

but using "weight" as a concern to not want go to four years seems like a rationalization to me because if someone was really concerned about his "weight" next season, i don't see why they would be willing to give him a three year deal.

I think weight is just one reason, and it was just cited as an example. 

You also can look at his age.  I personally think he is worth the MLE next year, but anything more than that would be overpaying him.  And since he is on the other side of 30, common sense would tell you that he is not going to be improving, so he would likely be getting further and further from good value each year. 

Also, he has had an injury history.  Although he hasn't had major injuries, he also has not had many full seasons.  Those are the type of small injuries that can add up as you get older.

And the weight comes in when you start questioning whether he is the type of player who will continue to do the extra work needed to stay at the top of his game, once he gets the big pay day.  The suspension (whether you agree with it or not) provides reasonable doubt about whether he might not be the type of workout warrior that you generally need to be to continue to improve into your 30's.  I think too many people look at his hustle on the floor, and his warrior attitude, and assume that means that he is just as hard a worker when it comes to taking care of himself...but unfortunately, those two are completely separate.

When you add those together, you get a player who is a risk to become significantly less productive over the next few years. 

Like I said, I believe it is worth the risk for 3 years (although ownership, who pays him, might think otherwise), but once you get into that 4th year, I think the risk to the teams ability to continue to compete grows exponentially.

and what about the risk of putting an inferior team on the court next season.....what is the monetary risk about that?  if this team repeats, that would be huge in so many ways for this franchise and certainly would dwarf any downturn in his ability in this fourth season you are worried about, no?

[butterbeanlove]

Bartlestein was just interviewed on 1510. They asked him about the Herald story and the other team offering four years and he said he wasn't going to get into specifics about offers.

Said Posey's first choice is to stay in Boston and has been all along.

Also said there could be a decision in "a day or two."

[rondofan1255]

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2008/07/celtics_dvd_pre.html

The other Celtics need to sweet-talk Posey.

[SShoreFan 2.0]

Bartlestein was just interviewed on 1510. They asked him about the Herald story and the other team offering four years and he said he wasn't going to get into specifics about offers.

Said Posey's first choice is to stay in Boston and has been all along.

Also said there could be a decision in "a day or two."

here's hoping the day or two part is correct.

my prediction

3 years MLE and a club option for the 4th.

[indeedproceed]

People keep bringing up Posey's "weight" violation with the Heat. That was absolutely ridiculous. Riley's body fat percentage requirement was a joke. When they suspended Posey and Walker, Posey had 9% body fat and Walker 11% . Even Antoine's wasn't a real big deal. When you bring up these kind of comments you are insinuating that Posey is a slacker and not a hard worker. We have never heard once that he didn't bring it all the time. We don't know what he did in practice, but the man surely is not and has never been fat. Target something realistic if you are going to bring up comments to rationalize not giving him a fourth year...

i agree. TP.

using "weight" as a reason to not give Posey a 4th year is ridiculous.

personally, i don't agree with the salary structure reasoning either, but at least it has some merit.

How is posey's conditioning not a valid concern? Nearly all of Posey's effectiveness as a defender can be attributed to his length and athleticism. If Posey loses a step he's a much less effective defender. He's 31 now, so its not like he had anywhere to go but down. I don't think its a good reason to not sign him, but it should definitely be a factor when considering the entire picture. his coach gave him criteria to be filled, and Posey didn't fill it, thats got to matter somewhere in all this.

are you seriously worried about Posey's "weight" next season?

like EJP pointed out, that situation in Miami was overblown.

if i are arguing that we should only sign Posey for one season, then i think it is fair to be using post Title "weight" as a criticism.

but if you are in the "three years - yes. four years - no." camp, then i think you are just rationalizing. because if you were genuinely worried about what shape Posey is going to be in next season, then you wouldn't want to sign him for three years.

Im "genuinely worried" that Posey will become complacent as he ages, which is the implication that these weight arguments carry.

Thats why I don't want a third or a fourth year really. I know Wyc is rich but the prospect of wasting over 10million dollars on a player (lux tax+salary) that can only be used as trade fodder is probably pretty disheartening.

James Posey will only be as good as his body holds up and his enthusiasm stays for the game of basketball. You can't fake what he does on the defensive end. I don't know enough about POsey to tell if he's going to play 110% for all four years of that contract, but history tells us that aging athletic wing players lose a step around age 33/34. You can't like the odds that he will be an exception if he again has conditioning problems.

it seems strange to me that you would be willing to give a three year deal to a guy that you are worried about phoning it in over the next couple of seasons.

remember, the reasoning you are giving for this concern is that Posey supposedly got lazy in the season FOLLOWING the Miami Title....not three seasons down the road.

I said above I didn't want to give him a 3 yr deal. I'd much rather a 2 yr deal.

I also alluded to that the real implication of Poseys poor conditioning habits (once again, assuming there are poor habits) is that once he begins to lose his athletic abilities, the downturn could be much more drastic than it would be if he kept himself properly conditioned.

Also, in case the connection isn't clear, Im saying that since he had a problem with a coach in the past about his body fat %, there may be a problem in the future aobut his conditioning, espcially if you give credence to the thought that some aging athletes tend to become complacent after they sign long term lucrative guaranteed contracts.

I would also like to clarify that Im not saying all athletes or even all aging athletes that sign long term contracts become complacent, but it is a definite concern, esp if you agree that Posey's motive in signing a discounted contract this past season was because he wanted a more lucrative long term pay day so he needed to increase his value.

[Roy Hobbs]

Bartlestein was just interviewed on 1510. They asked him about the Herald story and the other team offering four years and he said he wasn't going to get into specifics about offers.

Said Posey's first choice is to stay in Boston and has been all along.

Also said there could be a decision in "a day or two."

here's hoping the day or two part is correct.

my prediction

3 years MLE and a club option for the 4th.

A team option would be huge, because that can be used as a very nice trading chip. 

I think Danny knows he's got the upper hand here, despite the efforts of Bartelstein to spin it.

[Chris]

People keep bringing up Posey's "weight" violation with the Heat. That was absolutely ridiculous. Riley's body fat percentage requirement was a joke. When they suspended Posey and Walker, Posey had 9% body fat and Walker 11% . Even Antoine's wasn't a real big deal. When you bring up these kind of comments you are insinuating that Posey is a slacker and not a hard worker. We have never heard once that he didn't bring it all the time. We don't know what he did in practice, but the man surely is not and has never been fat. Target something realistic if you are going to bring up comments to rationalize not giving him a fourth year...

i agree. TP.

using "weight" as a reason to not give Posey a 4th year is ridiculous.

personally, i don't agree with the salary structure reasoning either, but at least it has some merit.

How is posey's conditioning not a valid concern? Nearly all of Posey's effectiveness as a defender can be attributed to his length and athleticism. If Posey loses a step he's a much less effective defender. He's 31 now, so its not like he had anywhere to go but down. I don't think its a good reason to not sign him, but it should definitely be a factor when considering the entire picture. his coach gave him criteria to be filled, and Posey didn't fill it, thats got to matter somewhere in all this.

Ditto.  How many of us have followed Posey's career closely enough to know him well?  As much as people would love to think he's a super-motivated gym rat, were there any stories like that during the season?  I remember all the stories about Ray Allen, KG, Rondo, etc., but to my knowledge Posey has never been cited as somebody who is constantly working out.  He could be doing those things; we just don't know.

Obviously, he performed this season, but many players perform well in a contract year.  The last time he was on a team coming off of a championship, his coach questioned his conditioning and his failure to meet goals set for him.  Obviously, that Riley was willing to suspend somebody who is seen as a "team leader" suggests that he wasn't happy about something.

We know what Posey did for us for one season.  He filled his role very well, and I would like to see him back.  However, the longer you extend his contract, the more you have to worry about other issues.  Amongst those are the natural aging process, which can presumably be accelerated or decelerated by a player's fitness.  If Posey isn't going to make every possible effort to get himself in tip-top playing condition (something none of us know for certain one way or the other) then at least it's a caution flag.

again, if this is really your feelings, then why are you okay signing him for three seasons?

Well, I can't speak for Roy, but as someone who thinks 3 years is ideal, and 4 is a much bigger risk, here is my reasoning... The C's salary structure for the next 3 years pretty much dictates that they will not have significant cap space at all without some major maneuvering.  However, in the 4th year (2011), they are potentially looking at enough cap space to offer someone a max contract once Pierce comes off the books.  If they have Posey on the books for $7-$8 million that year, that could be the difference between us being able to "reload", or being stuck without quite enough room.  If Posey is still producing to warrant an $8 million contract, that is one thing, but if there are legitimate doubts that he would be, then it is a problem.

chris, like i said in an earlier post, while i don't personally agree with the salary concerns about offering Posey an MLE deal, i don't recognize that the concerns are legit.

but using "weight" as a concern to not want go to four years seems like a rationalization to me because if someone was really concerned about his "weight" next season, i don't see why they would be willing to give him a three year deal.

I think weight is just one reason, and it was just cited as an example. 

You also can look at his age.  I personally think he is worth the MLE next year, but anything more than that would be overpaying him.  And since he is on the other side of 30, common sense would tell you that he is not going to be improving, so he would likely be getting further and further from good value each year. 

Also, he has had an injury history.  Although he hasn't had major injuries, he also has not had many full seasons.  Those are the type of small injuries that can add up as you get older.

And the weight comes in when you start questioning whether he is the type of player who will continue to do the extra work needed to stay at the top of his game, once he gets the big pay day.  The suspension (whether you agree with it or not) provides reasonable doubt about whether he might not be the type of workout warrior that you generally need to be to continue to improve into your 30's.  I think too many people look at his hustle on the floor, and his warrior attitude, and assume that means that he is just as hard a worker when it comes to taking care of himself...but unfortunately, those two are completely separate.

When you add those together, you get a player who is a risk to become significantly less productive over the next few years. 

Like I said, I believe it is worth the risk for 3 years (although ownership, who pays him, might think otherwise), but once you get into that 4th year, I think the risk to the teams ability to continue to compete grows exponentially.

and what about the risk of putting an inferior team on the court next season.....what is the monetary risk about that?  if this team repeats, that would be huge in so many ways for this franchise and certainly would dwarf any downturn in his ability in this fourth season you are worried about, no?

Well, I personally believe that with Posey or not, assuming they are able to find a decent replacement (Barnes, Ross, Azuibuke, etc.) this team is still the favorite to repeat.  I think Posey was very important last year, and he would help them next year, but he is nowhere close to irreplacable.  And I happen to think that the amount he would increase the C's chances to repeat next year are vastly outweighed by the risk they would be taking to have him on their books in 4 years, when they will need the help much more if they want to stay competitive, and not slip into another 20 year dry spell.

If you don't agree with this, that is fine, we can agree to disagree, but I just don't think Posey is as important to next years team as some of you do.