Should the Celtics waive TA if they find three players that can help them now?

[BrickJames]

TPs for Roy (good point about Mikki being bought out with guaranteed money - did not realize that) and Gomesfan (for complimenting my handle, plus the fact that I'm a Gomes fan too)

[hpantazo]

definately wave TA, regardless if if they find 3 players, he's done, stick a fork in him. He never helps the team even when he's healthy.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

I don't think they will.  Between Eddie, Scal, and Tony, the team has close to $9 million in expiring contracts to use as trade chips next season.  They team may want to hold on to him for that reason.  Plus, due to luxury tax, they're essentially going to be paying $5 million to have him on the roster next year, so they may as well try to get something out of him.

Very interesting point, and perhaps one reason why the Celtics were not so quick to jump on the oppty to get Nocioni.

Yeah, Nocioni would have limited next season's flexibility, and would have stuck them with a long-term contract.  Inversely, he would have increased flexibility this year and probably improved our chances at repeating.

I completely agree.  On Thursday I had a fantasy that within a couple weeks our bench would be:

Marbury or Bobby Jackson
Eddie House
Nocioni
Powe
Joe Smith or Rasho

The great thing about the potential Nocioni trade was that it would have left us with *four* open roster spots.  Our roster would have been:

Perk
KG
Pierce
Ray
Rondo

Nocioni
House
Powe
BBD (if not traded, Giddens if he was)
Pruitt
Walker

FA (Smith?)
FA (Moore?)
FA (Jackson?)
FA (Starbury?)

Now, the downside of that trade is that you're working in a lot of new bodies into your rotation.  However, I really think from the Celtics perspective, this trade would have worked out (especially if Sacramento would take Giddens, instead of BBD, as Hollinger suggested was the case).

Now, in the end, this may be moot -- at least one report says Sacramento would have walked away if we didn't.  However, I think it's too bad that the team wouldn't pull the deal on a clear talent upgrade simply due to financial concerns.

I agree. Unfortunately, it would appear that we now know that cash is our priority, not titles.

Is it me, or do you guys throw around the "cash-is-their-priority-not-titles" charge at the Celtics whenever they do something you don't agree with?  Because there is SOME middle ground between doing everything the yahoos on Celticblog think you should do and accusing the Celtics of caring more about money than titles, a charge by the way which is preposterous and without any grounding in reality.  I mean, maybe the Celtics would like to have some financial flexibility in 10' and 11' (when Ray/Rondo/Paul/Perk are up for new contracts) and also would like to keep some continuity on the team and not trade half their bench away in the process.  It's never a pure money decision--it's always a process of weighing the monetary and basketball pluses and minuses--and to suggest in such a black and white manner that it's only about money and not titles....well, that's betrays a complete lack of understanding of the NBA.

Of course, Roy Hobbs likes to label the loss of 3 rotation players (Baby, Scal and TA) in the rumored Nocioni trade as 'increased flexibility' but it sounds like increased madness to me....unless you want to give Doc the headache of incorporating as many as 5 new players into the lineup in the midst of a race for the best record in the league.   Remember, this would involve teaching the offense/defense to 5 new players and building the requisite chemistry of those 5 new players with the remaining players on the team in only 27 games and doing that while still keeping our current .800 winning percentage.  Gotta love that kind of flexibility--the kind that could potentially send the team into a downward spiral.  In reality, the Nocioni trade was bad from a money standpoint and quite risky from a basketball standpoint.  There was no guarantee that we'd be a better team this season if we made that trade and an absolute guarantee that our salary structure in 10' and 11' would be worsened--all for one player and the 'increased flexibility' of incorporating that one overpaid player into the team at the time when we also needed to potentially incorporate another 4.

And then, to top it off, the most preposterous idea of them all: Let's simply waive our best bench player--the 5th best player on the team by almost all statistical measurements--because he's out for another 7 weeks.  Forgetting salary cap implications that have been already handled in this thread, the poster's justification was that we should waive TA if we could find 3 players that could help us more.  Hilarious!  We might as well waive the entire bench in that's the case.

TA's going to be back in the playoffs and he's going to do the things he's always done--get to the basket and play defense.  We'll need those things off the bench in the playoffs.  It might just be me, but I'd rather not strictly rely on outside shooting off the bench from the wing position and, additionally, it'd be nice to have a wing who could play good, tough perimeter defense.  Pruitt moves his feet well, but he gets outmuscled by most 2 guards.  And House can't guard anybody (though his hustle might fool you into thinking he is).  And even if we get Marbury, I'd rather rely on TA as our defensive wing man off the bench. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Of course, Roy Hobbs likes to label the loss of 3 rotation players (Baby, Scal and TA) in the rumored Nocioni trade as 'increased flexibility' but it sounds like increased madness to me....

Please don't misquote me.  I said:

Yeah, Nocioni would have limited next season's flexibility, and would have stuck them with a long-term contract.  Inversely, he would have increased flexibility this year and probably improved our chances at repeating.

First, according to Hollinger, BBD wasn't necessarily in the deal, as I noted; he reported it as POB, Giddens, Scal, and Tony.  Second, I think my quote was fairly clear:  the trade would have increased roster flexibility this year, but limited it next season (due to loss of expiring contracts).

How can you possibly disagree with this?  Having four open roster slots would have increased our roster flexibility greatly, especially because only one player on the active roster right now -- Scal -- would have been traded.

I'd encourage you to take a little more time to check your arguments for accuracy before calling out other posters.

P.S.  You may have noticed, Mr. Salmon and Mashed Potatoes himself isn't in the rotation right now, and won't be until, at a minimum, the start of the playoffs.  Thus, he's not a "rotation player" for the rest of this season.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Of course, Roy Hobbs likes to label the loss of 3 rotation players (Baby, Scal and TA) in the rumored Nocioni trade as 'increased flexibility' but it sounds like increased madness to me....

Please don't misquote me.  I said:

Yeah, Nocioni would have limited next season's flexibility, and would have stuck them with a long-term contract.  Inversely, he would have increased flexibility this year and probably improved our chances at repeating.

Did I misquote you?  I don't think I did.  Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, or misunderstood, but I'm pretty sure I quoted you correctly, since Nocioni = the loss of 3 rotation players (ignoring what Hollinger reported--which I do because he's not a reporter).

First, according to Hollinger, BBD wasn't necessarily in the deal, as I noted; he reported it as POB, Giddens, Scal, and Tony. 

Hollinger reported one thing and others reported other things.  Big whoop.  The newest report says the Kings wanted Powe and that's why they walked away.  Would you have still wanted to do the deal?

Second, I think my quote was fairly clear:  the trade would have increased roster flexibility this year, but limited it next season (due to loss of expiring contracts).

How can you possibly disagree with this?  Having four open roster slots would have increased our roster flexibility greatly, especially because only one player on the active roster right now -- Scal -- would have been traded.

Yup, I don't disagree with the premise, I disagree with the conclusion and assumptions made to support that conclusion.  Increased roster flexibility is a two-edged sword--I just illuminated the side you dismissed.  It's not easy to incorporate up to 5 new players down the stretch on a team which relies in a great part on its chemistry.  If we made the trade in December, then it's a different story.  And if the trade included Giddens and not Baby, then maybe it's a different story.  I just don't accept Hollinger's word as the word of God.  The man knows #s, but 'reporting' is something else and I doubt he's got the truest version of what transpired.

I'd encourage you to take a little more time to check your arguments for accuracy before calling out other posters.

P.S.  You may have noticed, Mr. Salmon and Mashed Potatoes himself isn't in the rotation right now, and won't be until, at a minimum, the start of the playoffs.  Thus, he's not a "rotation player" for the rest of this season.

Whatever, Roy.  TA is a rotation player when healthy.  The team IS expecting him back for the playoffs.  The trade as rumored by most included TA, Scal, Baby, and POB.  That's 3 rotation players when healthy.  Those 3 players, plus the fact that it would have taken a lot of teaching/practice time to incorporate the players we would have had to sign to replace those players, plus the fact that Nocioni--just like Posey--ruins our salary structure in 10' and 11'--makes the deal unworkable from the Celtic perspective.  And I love Nocioni too, but the deal has way too many cons for it to be anything more than a desperate attempt to make up for loss of Posey.  And Danny doesn't make desperate deals.  He weighs the pros and cons of the financial and basketball related aspects of a deal and acts accordingly...and that's why I called out CoachBo for his simplistic, reactionary indictment that we 'now know that cash is our priority, not titles.'  That's bunk.

[CoachBo]

And if you believe that 10 and 11 are the primary concerns of a franchise that apparently has mortgaged its financial future for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, with the respect you deserve - that's absolute, unadulterated nonsense.

It is beyond idiotic for the focus of this team and this management to be on ANYTHING but titles over the next two seasons.

Period. We're spending 35 million on two players whose careers are winding down, and you expect anyone to believe that we're now planning for three years down the road? I certainly don't consider Danny Ainge anywhere near a genius, but the sheer stupidity of that is beneath even my assessment of his and Grousbeck's management capability.

Yet we're apparently going to fuss over a handful of million dollars three years down the road? That argument is nothing more than a reactionary, simplistic - nice word, mind if I use it? - copout, and a futile attempt to rationalize the missteps of this team's management - missteps that began this summer. I know it's a cottage sport on this board to characterize each and every move Danny makes as a genius piece of a grand master plan. Too bad that the Real GM fantasy island has infected this board.

I hate to break it to you, but investing in two 30-plus stars is a commitment to now. It isn't a commitment to 2011, and with Danny's penchant for off-season signings, does anyone really want to stake the franchise's future on more O'Bryants? More late first rounders like Gerald Green? Giddens? News flash: It's going to be rough again when Garnett, Pierce and Ray are done. That's OK, frankly - if we maximize the potential of what they can do for the franchise now.

Anything less than a total maximization of this season, next season and if we're lucky, the following season is inexcusably bad management. There's still time with buyouts to accomplish that.

But in the meantime, stop with the "Danny's planning for 2011" nonsense. He's a human being who's made some good moves and some really bad ones. He's not that stupid, and neither are most of us.