WEEI: Unnamed team willing to offer Posey 4th year

[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.

the other thing nick that i think you are not factoring in to the equation is how difficult it is to put together a trio like Pierce, KG and Ray together...assuming that you can do this 4 years from now is not a given.

in the NBA, talent is at much more of a premium than in the NFL and MLB......

the only position that you can really compare to the NBA is QB (coach too) and having Brady as a Super Bowl winner at 24 teamed with Belichick is REALLY the reason that this system is working here so well...

take away Brady and i don't think this system would be as attractive because we may have been competitive, but not champions...at least not in the same dominant way...

[BballTim]

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.

  The Bulls started from scratch about 11 years ago. How's that working out? And our 78-79 rebuilding model was to draft a top 5 player of all time when he still had a year of eligibility left and then have someone trade us a HOF center early in his career in order to move up 2 spots in the draft.

[Who]

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

Split the difference. Half of his fourth year guaranteed, half not. 3.5mil isn't going to make the world of difference. Just look at Scal.

[cordobes]

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.

Exactly.

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.

How? In that 4th year, we'll have a 36 years old Garnett making $21M. We'll have Rondo with a $8M-$10M salary. How is having a tradeable $7M expiring going to hurt us and exponentially? Because of salary flexibility? It's not going to be that salary to make impossible for us to go after an "above MLE-level" free-agent.

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.

Sclabrine will not be in the end of the bench in his last contract year. He'll be easily traded in the next off-season or trade deadline.

[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?

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.

like i have said many times on this topic, this is the ONLY solid reason to be okay with not bringing Posey back IMO.  

if you think that we either don't need Posey or are comfortable with the players being tabbed to replace him, then that makes total sense to oppose any long-term offer to Posey.

personally, the people that we have heard so far to replace Posey are a huge step down, and for that reason i would have no problem with them going to four years on him.

[paintitgreen]

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.

I agree with this 100%. We tried to keep ourselves competitive while rebuilding, and we still ended up sucking anyway. Just go all in now when you actually have a chance to win.

Besides, it's not like this has always been Ainge's MO. His first big move was to trade for Raef LaFrentz and the 6 years remaining on his contract. He also resigned Mark Blount to way more money and years than he deserved. Was Ainge worried about 4 years down the road when he signed Brian Scalabrine to a 5 year deal?

Yes, Posey's salary will double Scal's contract, and you don't want a repeat of the Blount situation, but neither Scalabrine nor Blount had ever or has ever shown they can be a key contributor on a championship winning team. Maybe he's replaceable, but again, we know Posey works for this team because he was a big factor in us winning a championship last season. Why would we risk a guy like Ross or Azubuike who may or may not pan out when we have a guy we know can work?

And we have a chance to continue winning NOW. Why worry about what our team will look like in 2011-12? Who could have foreseen three years ago that we would have just won a title with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, PJ Brown, James Posey, Sam Cassell and Eddie House playing big roles? A lot of things change. Danny has made mistakes with long term deals before and managed to work things out fine. But this is for far less money than the mistakes (Raef, Blount) he made before. And it's for a guy who actually helped us win a title, not a guy who had potential to be good, or a guy who looked good on a bad team in the three months before he hit free agency.

As has been said, worst comes to worse, we have $7 mil expiring in 2012 instead of $6.5 mil in 2011.

[cordobes]

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.

(Chris)

I can understand this rationale (not the "3 years yes, 4 years no" one, unless it goes along with a strong suspect that Posey will decline quickly in the next 1/2 years).

The problem is that Azuibike is a restricted free-agent and the Warriors will match any MLE offer for him.

The other two names would be massive downgrades: Barnes is not really a winger (and he doesn't want to play outside of NoCal - didn't he once started working out for NFL teams to remain there?). And Ross is less versatile than Posey and has zero offensive game - we'd be in trouble playing him and Rondo in the same team.

[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

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.

i just wanted to isolate one other thing in your post.

all the side monetary benefits of not signing Vinatieri and replacing him with draft pick would have been paltry if we had lost a huge playoff game because of a shanked FG attempt.

that is why i have said that the strategy is only as good as the replacement and that is why when it doesn't work like with the receivers, they change course.

and unlike the Pats with Brady, the Cs don't have the same window of opportunity.

[Who]

The problem is that Azuibike is a restricted free-agent and the Warriors will match any MLE offer for him.

I've read this a bunch of times and I don't think this is true at all. They definitely won't match and MLE offer for Azubuike. They probably let him loose at the 3mil mark. Possibly the 2.5mil mark if there's many years on it. He hasn't established himself as being worth that and he isn't that highly valued down in GSW. Heck Nellie dropped him to the fourth wing in the rotation for two months because he wasn't happy with his play. He wouldn't have even gotten back into the rotation if Belinelli was ready to play which hopefully will be next season. The Warriors value him as a minimum contract, not an MLE player.

I don't think GSW would have matched offers for Barnes (anything over 2.5mil with length) or Pietrus (anything over 4mil with length) last year. Someone please call Mully on this, he'll fold.

[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.

like i have said many times on this topic, this is the ONLY solid reason to be okay with not bringing Posey back IMO. 

if you think that we either don't need Posey or are comfortable with the players being tabbed to replace him, then that makes total sense to oppose any long-term offer to Posey.

personally, the people that we have heard so far to replace Posey are a huge step down, and for that reason i would have no problem with them going to four years on him.

I just happen to believe that some of those guys are much better than they look, because they were not surrounded by the great players that surrounded Posey this past year.

[Truth Hurts]

We tried to keep ourselves competitive while rebuilding, and we still ended up sucking anyway. Just go all in now when you actually have a chance to win.

Besides, it's not like this has always been Ainge's MO. His first big move was to trade for Raef LaFrentz and the 6 years remaining on his contract. He also resigned Mark Blount to way more money and years than he deserved. Was Ainge worried about 4 years down the road when he signed Brian Scalabrine to a 5 year deal?

Yes, Posey's salary will double Scal's contract, and you don't want a repeat of the Blount situation, but neither Scalabrine nor Blount had ever or has ever shown they can be a key contributor on a championship winning team. Maybe he's replaceable, but again, we know Posey works for this team because he was a big factor in us winning a championship last season. Why would we risk a guy like Ross or Azubuike who may or may not pan out when we have a guy we know can work?

And we have a chance to continue winning NOW. Why worry about what our team will look like in 2011-12? Who could have foreseen three years ago that we would have just won a title with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, PJ Brown, James Posey, Sam Cassell and Eddie House playing big roles? A lot of things change. Danny has made mistakes with long term deals before and managed to work things out fine. But this is for far less money than the mistakes (Raef, Blount) he made before. And it's for a guy who actually helped us win a title, not a guy who had potential to be good, or a guy who looked good on a bad team in the three months before he hit free agency.

As has been said, worst comes to worse, we have $7 mil expiring in 2012 instead of $6.5 mil in 2011.

TP for this post.

It's almost as if Danny wants to be Theo Epstein now. When we sucked, it was OK to lock up huge dollars in Scalabrine, Blount, Lafrentz..etc....but now, when we have the best team in basketball, we are going to let an important cog walk over relative peanuts?

I'm not going to be happy if we lose Posey in the name of "fiscal responsibility". Vin Baker, Mark Blount and others had a much, much larger impact on our cap. Overpaying Posey a little bit in either dollars or years isn't going to affect the future of this team in any way other than giving this particular group a chance to win multiple championships, like the great teams of Celtics past.

Quibbling over small potatoes right now, with the opportunity in front of this team seems ridiculous to me.

[BballTim]

i just wanted to isolate one other thing in your post.

all the side monetary benefits of not signing Vinatieri and replacing him with draft pick would have been paltry if we had lost a huge playoff game because of a shanked FG attempt.

that is why i have said that the strategy is only as good as the replacement and that is why when it doesn't work like with the receivers, they change course.

and unlike the Pats with Brady, the Cs don't have the same window of opportunity.

  This thing you're not seeing is that the Pats make a few decisions like this every year. Each decision seems like a good risk at the time but sooner or later one of the choices is bound to fail. Could have been Vinateri, could have been the receivers, could have been Corey Dillon or Milloy or anyone else. But they still do what they're doing even though at some point it will cost them a title because if they don't they won't be able to contend for any titles.

[Roy Hobbs]

It's almost as if Danny wants to be Theo Epstein now. When we sucked, it was OK to lock up huge dollars in Scalabrine, Blount, Lafrentz..etc....but now, when we have the best team in basketball, we are going to let an important cog walk over relative peanuts?

Could it be that Danny learned from his mistakes?  I mean, we lost out on Brandon Roy to shave just one season off Raef's contract. 

Also, keep in mind we have no idea what Danny's budget is, or what he's been told about unrestrained spending in the future.  Ownership's willingness to go over the luxury tax may not extend forever, and I'm sure Danny doesn't want to see the team fall apart due to overspending in the short-term.

As somebody who negotiates as part of his daily job, at some point, you need to draw a line in the sand.  I would absolutely love to negotiate with more people with the mindset "whatever it costs, we'll pay".  Danny, however, is too shrewd for that.  This deal will get done for three years.  If it doesn't, Posey can enjoy his time in New Orleans.

[BballTim]

We tried to keep ourselves competitive while rebuilding, and we still ended up sucking anyway. Just go all in now when you actually have a chance to win.

Besides, it's not like this has always been Ainge's MO. His first big move was to trade for Raef LaFrentz and the 6 years remaining on his contract. He also resigned Mark Blount to way more money and years than he deserved. Was Ainge worried about 4 years down the road when he signed Brian Scalabrine to a 5 year deal?

Yes, Posey's salary will double Scal's contract, and you don't want a repeat of the Blount situation, but neither Scalabrine nor Blount had ever or has ever shown they can be a key contributor on a championship winning team. Maybe he's replaceable, but again, we know Posey works for this team because he was a big factor in us winning a championship last season. Why would we risk a guy like Ross or Azubuike who may or may not pan out when we have a guy we know can work?

And we have a chance to continue winning NOW. Why worry about what our team will look like in 2011-12? Who could have foreseen three years ago that we would have just won a title with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, PJ Brown, James Posey, Sam Cassell and Eddie House playing big roles? A lot of things change. Danny has made mistakes with long term deals before and managed to work things out fine. But this is for far less money than the mistakes (Raef, Blount) he made before. And it's for a guy who actually helped us win a title, not a guy who had potential to be good, or a guy who looked good on a bad team in the three months before he hit free agency.

As has been said, worst comes to worse, we have $7 mil expiring in 2012 instead of $6.5 mil in 2011.

TP for this post.

It's almost as if Danny wants to be Theo Epstein now. When we sucked, it was OK to lock up huge dollars in Scalabrine, Blount, Lafrentz..etc....but now, when we have the best team in basketball, we are going to let an important cog walk over relative peanuts?

I'm not going to be happy if we lose Posey in the name of "fiscal responsibility". Vin Baker, Mark Blount and others had a much, much larger impact on our cap. Overpaying Posey a little bit in either dollars or years isn't going to affect the future of this team in any way other than giving this particular group a chance to win multiple championships, like the great teams of Celtics past.

Quibbling over small potatoes right now, with the opportunity in front of this team seems ridiculous to me.

  For one thing, we weren't paying the luxury tax when those decisions were made. Obviously Danny doesn't have an unlimited budget.

[Chris]

It's almost as if Danny wants to be Theo Epstein now. When we sucked, it was OK to lock up huge dollars in Scalabrine, Blount, Lafrentz..etc....but now, when we have the best team in basketball, we are going to let an important cog walk over relative peanuts?

Could it be that Danny learned from his mistakes?  I mean, we lost out on Brandon Roy to shave just one season off Raef's contract. 

Also, keep in mind we have no idea what Danny's budget is, or what he's been told about unrestrained spending in the future.  Ownership's willingness to go over the luxury tax may not extend forever, and I'm sure Danny doesn't want to see the team fall apart.

I was about to say the same thing.  I hate this argument of "well, you messed up before, why stop now?"

It is a good thing that Danny clearly figured out how the cap works.  Over the last few years (yes, not just since getting KG, he started working the cap about 3 years ago), he has completely changed his strategy, and realized that in order to keep your team from falling into cap hell (see: NY), you need to be planning years down the line.  That is why he did the Ratliff/Lafrentz deal, and that is why I don't expect him to budge on the 4th year here.