ok who's flip flopping on posey now?

[Redz]

Agree with other posters that I never didn't want Posey back, but understood the decision.  It still sucks not having him.

I've gone over this scenario on here a bunch of times, but there are two things missing from last season.

1) The rare, complete, and utter maniacal, game in and game out, regular season focus on smothering defense

2) James Posey - who was very often on the floor during the peak level of the above described level of D

Would that same focus be here every game if Posey was still here?  I don't know if we'll ever again see a team have a regular season like we did last year from the C's, but I'm willing to bet the intensity level would be up a notch or two. 

[nickagneta]

I never wanted Big Game to leave but I also didn't think it prudent to pay him the money he was looking for.

What I would have preferred is for Danny to have gauged the situation better and made a faster decision on Posey and then proceeded from there. If he had read correctly that it was going to take the contract that Posey was going to get weeks ahead of time, and I think there was enough media and bloggers alike who felt that James was going to get what he did months ahead of time not weeks, he could have proceeded in another direction much earlier and possibly been able to restructure the bench differently and much better.

He and Danny commented about just how bad that small ball lineup with Posey playing the 4 was for this team. They noted how much better and more efficient they were with a more standard lineup with length and size up front. If they had read the Posey situation earlier and gone ahead with filling their bench openings with different types of players instead of running back to Eddie and Tony once word had it that they lost Posey, this would be a different and better team.

You see here is where the problem lies with the bench. Last year, late in games, if Perk was playing like he has of late or even if he was playing well, Doc had the confidence to go to Posey late knowing that he'd give them the whole package. Leadership, confidence to take the big shot, smart basketball, great defense and just a presence. When Doc went to Posey late he had his 5 best on the court to close out the game.

Now what happens when Perk starts to disappear late in games like he usually does? Where does Doc turn to? Who does Doc have that has the versatility, presence, and ability that James Posey gave him? You take Perk out late and who are you putting in that will be what Posey gave you? Tony? Baby? Powe? Scal? Eddie?

I mean you have got to be kidding me. The drop off in that one area late in games is precipitous. It's not even close. If that player was Roger Mason, Matt Barnes, Mikael Pietrus, James Jones, Anthony Johnson, Maurice Evans, Jose Juan Barea, Carl Landry, Flip Murray, Theo Ratliff, Eduardo Najera maybe things are different and this streak isn't taking place.

There was a bunch of other veteran talent that Danny could have gone with other than POB, TA, and Eddie House. He left Doc with little choices to have confidence calling on late in games. And that is really inexcusable. 

[Mencius]

I always thought it was penny wise and pound foolish to let James go.

It's about maximizing a window, which, when we got Ray and Garnett, considering their ages, I put at 2 or 3 years.  Well, we're in year 2.

I also think that's Posey's years of effective play are about the same as our Big 3's.

My reasoning was that Posey likely would not be worth his contract in year 4, but I figure our window would have closed by then anyway. 

Unlike some on these boards, I figure we will stink for a couple of years when PGA are not producing at present levels.  I'm fine with that.  All human beings athleticism falls off in their 30s.  I think their was a lot of homerish wishful thinking talk about extending the window and continued dominance after PGA fall off.  To me, to be a dominant team, you need all-star caliber players (2 or 3 of them) playing at all-star level.

I regard it as wishful thinking projecting that the play of Powe and (to a lesser extent) Rondo, and Baby, Walker, etc will rise so much that they will offset the decline of PGA.

Would have been better just to give Posey his contract knowing you'd not be getting value in his last year or two, because his shelf life is about the same as PGA's.  Maximize the window and accept that we'll stink for a couple of years while we reload after the inevitable decline of PGA.

When you go all in, like Danny did getting Ray and Garnett, you do so knowing that your window is short (given ages).  Last summer was the wrong time to suddenly get frugal.

Most teams don't even HAVE a window.  To not maximize your brief one is just plain dumb.

[cordobes]

I still can't understand the financial responsibility angle.

Since when the addition of a single year of MLE contract in 2012 would impact the future of the franchise? Really, I can't wait to see how we're going to use that money...

And of course we need a small-ball lineup. The theory that limiting your own options is good is bizarre.

I completely agree with Mencius post. Very good post, TP.

[Mencius]

also, im not sure who your going to get to "flip flop" here. i can't remeber one poster that didnt want james back. the only division was weather he was worth it for how many years the hornets had to give.

But seriously, i can't remember one guy who went

"posey sucks, i don't want/need him back" i think we all realize he's a great bench player.

Im certainly not going to "flip flop" on my original decision that i wanted james back badly, but can see the business side of what happened as well.

I think that the flip flop question is not a did you want Posey or not want Posey question, but rather, did you want to give him the extra year or not.

[Andy Jick]

to not pay posey for 4 years, yet give scalabrine 5 years...well, it makes no sense to me.  but oh well, i guess we'll see if danny and ownership was right.

they got #17 and made a bunch of money, so maybe they've already achieved their goal...

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

Posey  was worth the money he wanted, no ands if or buts about it, hes gonna be washed up in 4 years? KG is gonna be a fossil in 4 years, who cares...you traded youre entire future for 1 title, then decide  to surround the tired 3 with garbage and take away there best support player?
the ones to blame are KG and Ray, who are ridicoulousy overpaid right now

[crownsy]

to not pay posey for 4 years, yet give scalabrine 5 years...well, it makes no sense to me.  but oh well, i guess we'll see if danny and ownership was right.

they got #17 and made a bunch of money, so maybe they've already achieved their goal...

comepltley and totally out of context. Scal was a hotly sought after mid level FA after his last deal.

Its clear he sucks now, but at the time he was considered pretty good.

[action781]

Posey  was worth the money he wanted, no ands if or buts about it, hes gonna be washed up in 4 years? KG is gonna be a fossil in 4 years, who cares...you traded youre entire future for 1 title, then decide  to surround the tired 3 with garbage and take away there best support player?
the ones to blame are KG and Ray, who are ridicoulousy overpaid right now

blame?  blame KG and Ray for what?  "blame" them for our 17th title?  not sure what you are complaining about here, the celts won the title last year and certainly have not lost this year's yet.

and "traded away youre entire future"?  ok, so we traded big al.  then gerald green?  telfair?  gomes?  delonte west?  all rotational bench players at best, not really that bright of a future if you ask me.  and we kept rondo, perk, and powe, so we certainly didnt trade away our entire future.

we can banter all we want about whether posey was worth the money he wanted or not, but realistically, nobody will know for at least another 2 years.  i believe he was not worth it, but nobody can definitively say whether or not he was.

[indeedproceed]

I've been against giving Posey the money from the beginning and Im still there. He wouldn't have changed this, and this blatant "I told you so" muck should be saved until the playoffs, when we will really see what Posey's subtraction meant.

[Vermont Green]

Everyone gets it that there was a business decision involved.  I think matching the Hornets offer would have been overpaying.  What is worth debating though is what contribution was lost and how it is affecting wins and losses.  We did manage to win 19 in a row without BIG GAME but now there is clearly something missing.  It seems a little hard to accept that this team has real problems but just somehow got hot and won 19 games in a row but now all of the sudden, these major weaknesses, brought on in large part by losing Posey, are exposed.  I also don't see the Hornets as being all that much better all of the sudden because of Posey.  He has played well and made a solid contribution but they haven’t won 19 in a row.

My bottom line is that I don't see losing Posey as irreparable.  A change or two is needed but there are any number of move combinations that could be made that will put us back on track to compete for a title.  I guess it will come down to if we don’t win the title everyone will say “see, I told you we needed Posey” but is that fair?  How about if the Hornets don’t win the title, what does that mean, or what if they do?  We may or may not be able to make any moves.  I am sure part of Danny’s decision was the expectation that we would.  Even if we don’t, the 19 wins in a row team could reemerge at the right time and we will still win a title.  I think there will be a move or two and I think we will be fine.

[Casperian]

I remember the threads in the off-season, how people tried to argue for Danny´s decision.
I thought the arguments were weak back then, and I think they´re still weak.
You can´t lose one of the best glue-guys in the league with a bench as one-dimensional as ours, and expect to continue as if nothing happened.

People said Tony would be the new Posey.

Tony didn´t play much during last year´s play-offs for a reason. His skill-set (and mindset!) is completely different to Posey. Defense doesn´t always equal defense. Tony is a good defender (on good days), but he´s not the smart, calm and hard-nosed defender Posey is.

They said it would be a dumb financial move to give Posey a 4th year.

A 4th year for Posey was never a financial risk!
I tell you what a financial risk is...Scal´s contract. Look around the league, and how many seemingly strange trades happen these days. GM´s realized the value of expiring contracts. A city like Boston, with bad weather, relatively high taxes and no superstars from the area will never be a big player on the FA market. Posey´s expiring contract could have been just as (if not more) valuable to the team´s future as the cap space we´ll have then.

A player like Posey is as rare as a good bíg man, and almost as important for a contender, imo. The Spurs have Bowen, the Pistons Prince, we and the Heat had Posey. These players have a certain combination of skills, which allows other players to blend much better.

Last year, we could play almost any backcourt combination with Posey in the rotation. We always had enough defense, enough spacing, enough penetration. This season, our hands are tied, most of the time. You can`t play Rondo and Tony together for more than 2 minutes, since both are terrible from behind the arc. House/Tony is a combination with low basketball IQ.
We cannot force any style of play onto our opponents anymore with two of our three amigos on the bench, we always have to react to the matchups, which is the biggest reason why we don´t look as dominant as last year, imho.

[Mencius]

I've been against giving Posey the money from the beginning and Im still there. He wouldn't have changed this, and this blatant "I told you so" muck should be saved until the playoffs, when we will really see what Posey's subtraction meant.

You have no way of knowing that "he wouldn't have changed this".

Maybe so, maybe not.  I think his contributions went way beyond stats, but I agree with you that we will know come the playoffs.

The streak was great fun and a very nice accomplishment, but the players kept it in the proper perspective.  They didn't get anything extra for that any more than the Rockets did last year.  It's only importance was that every win helps towards hopefully securing home court for the playoffs.

[winsomme]

James posey would not cure our lack of a back up point guard doc trusts who can move the ball, no height off the bench at the 4 and 5, lack of a defensive center to back up perk,and lack of ball movement when the second unit is on the floor.

Having james back would be great, it would solve one of 4 glaring bench problems, but it wouldn't suddenly make us 32-2.

we went the majority of last season with Eddie as our backup PG and Powe and BBD as our backup bigs....and Eddie proved to be the right option in the playoffs for backup PG...

so the question is: what is the real difference between the team this year and last year at this early point in the season?

clearly the answer to that is Posey...

we probably need another big for the playoffs (who knows, maybe that still we be PJ), but for right now, the only glaring need that we have is Posey's spot.

[winsomme]

He and Danny commented about just how bad that small ball lineup with Posey playing the 4 was for this team. They noted how much better and more efficient they were with a more standard lineup with length and size up front. If they had read the Posey situation earlier and gone ahead with filling their bench openings with different types of players instead of running back to Eddie and Tony once word had it that they lost Posey, this would be a different and better team.
 

c'mon, nick. you know that if DA had filled Posey's spot with another player before Posey signed with NO, he would have gotten killed for not waiting to go after Pose...

the big mistake that DA made wasn't missing on Barnes or Pietrus or Mo Evans, etc...the big mistake was actually thinking that giving Pose that 4th year he wanted would be worse than not having him on this team right now...

as for small ball not being effective or efficient, the problem with that observation is that even if technically true, not having the option of small ball has made us very one dimensional.