Author Topic: I'm questioning Ainge  (Read 11259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: I'm questioning Ainge
« Reply #60 on: July 02, 2009, 02:59:32 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
I don't think Powe will be back but still have some hope. I've said before, we probably need the roster spots for other guys. It sucks that, for example, Tony Allen is one of those guys, because that's a mistake Ainge made last year. Now, we're saddled with that $2.5 million contract. I hope it is flipped into something of value. If it isn't (and we really won't know that till midseason), I'll be really bummed that he steals a spot that could be used to store Powe. Same for Pruitt and probably Giddens. Like I said before, there are a lot of guys who I can't justify losing Powe for. Those are some of them. But remember, last year is last year, so the fact that we had POB and Cassell on our roster last year doesn't mean we should have Powe this year. If we had 14 roster spots on August 25, and last year's version of Cassell and this year's version of Powe were our two options, I guarantee Powe would be the choice. 

So on that level, I'll wait to see what happens. I agree we have to wait right now to see what else we can get. I agree with the decision not to extend a qualifying offer to him (if you're gonna sink costs in him for the recovery year, you need to get an option for good value in the post-recovery year, plus why pay him more in a QO than you could get for him otherwise?). There's no reason to go out now and sign somebody you may have to waive before the season starts, since you not only forfeit the salary paid to the player (which, in the case of Powe, who was hurt while helping our team, I'd have no problem with paying to Powe) but also an equivalent amount in luxury tax (why should the league's dregs get to share any amount of money that we agreed to give Powe out of respect for his past service even though we can't keep him?).

Like I said, I will be upset if we lose Powe because we have a bunch of other crappy undeserving players because they have bad contracts given out in previous years and we can't afford to waive them or someone has an irrational hope that a guy will become good (i.e., TA, Pruitt, Robert Swift, etc.) However, if we lose him because we have 15 guys more deserving of other spots and/or another team was willing to take the risk before we were, then that's the nature of the business. And if Powe gets paid somewhere, I'll be happy for him. So I'm reserving my anger.

I would be upset about right now, however, if the comments attributed to Danny are true. If he really told Powe that we wouldn't consider signing him until he is done with his rehab, and he's too much of a risk, then, as I've said in another post, I think that's being unnecessarily cold. But you have to realize, that may just be how Powe took it. It's personal for him, regardless of whether it's personal for Ainge, so he may see things differently than how they actually happened.

So I agree with Ainge's business decisions on Powe thus far this summer (though I disagree with several business decisions that have contributed to the present situation, such as giving Tony a two-year, $5 million contract last summer, and will disagree if certain players have roster spots over Powe), Ainge's communications with Powe may leave something to be desired and he may (depending on what the communications actually were) deserve criticism for them. I do think that Ainge should have taken the time and care to explain clearly to Powe what's going on.

Specifically, I think he should have said something like "Leon, we like you a lot. As you know, we have a small window to win championships with KG, Paul and Ray, and we have to capitalize on that window. We have several holes to fill and not a lot of flexibility. Filling those holes requires us to bring in players through free agency reducing available roster spots. I hope that we can find a way to fill those holes through trades and free agency so that we have a roster spot open in the next couple of months and can keep you in Boston to recuperate and come back with the Celtics. However, because of our present situation, we cannot commit to having an available space right now, until we make some moves in free agency and the trade market. As soon as it becomes apparent that we have a roster space for you, I will contact you. I understand that in the meantime you have to, and should, listen and talk to other teams and do what's right for your future. I just want you to know that we all truly appreciate what you've done for us and hope that we can find a way to continue our relationship with you. Unfortunately, I just can't tell you right now what we'll be able to do." 

I agree.  The real problem is some of these deadbeat deals.  If the C's weren't saddled with TA, Giddens, and Walker (who like them or not, are not guarantees to contribute next year), plus the uncertainty on the roster spots of Pruitt and Davis, not to mention the status of guys like Hudson, Swift, and Sweetney, and you can see why Ainge didn't want to guarantee a roster spot to Powe.  I mean what happens if Wallace signs, Oberto is available for the minimum, Davis comes back for cheap money when he finds nothing out there on the FA market, and Swift dominates the summer league?  I'm not saying all those things happen, but all of the sudden Danny has 4 bench 4/5 guys, plus the starters, plus Scal.  That's 7 of 15 roster spots.  Add Rondo, House, Ray, PP, Walker, Giddens, and TA and you have 14.  And that's not including anyone like Hill, Barnes, or Bowen we may sign, or the fact we might want to bring back Marbury or sign Hudson. 

So while I'm upset to see Powe go, I don't blame Danny for being cautious.  We still may sign him, but I think given how many roster spots we're already on the hook for and the amount of roster spots we have to fill in FA, it'd be tough to guarantee Powe a spot at this point. 

Re: I'm questioning Ainge
« Reply #61 on: July 02, 2009, 03:09:52 PM »

Offline paintitgreen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1104
  • Tommy Points: 154
Really, what I'd most like to see is a deal of TA, either Scal or Davis in a sign and trade, and Giddens or Walker to bring on a solid perimeter defender who can legitimately play the 3 and can contribute some minutes at either the 2 or, ideally, the 4. That kind of move gets us a legit 7th player (with Sheed as the 6th, House as the 8th) and clears up 1 or 2 roster spaces so that we have space for Powe as a 5th big behind Perk, KG, Wallace and Scal or Davis. We'd have Pierce, Allen, the trade acquisition and House, with the remaining player between Giddens and Walker as a 5th wing, plus Rondo and a backup point signing (I'm fine with Marbury at the veteran's minimum with that squad). That's 12 guys, and we can use the last three spots on any of the following: a wing at the LLE if one comes by, a second player kicked into the trade above, Hudson, a young project (a summer league guy, even Swift), a veteran addition.

But as with others, unless a trade like that comes along, we just have little space, and I definitely will be bummed out if we lose a guy like Powe because of bad former signings and a surplus of project players, considering we'd be losing one of the projects that actually worked out.
Go Celtics.

Re: I'm questioning Ainge
« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2009, 03:11:43 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
Really, what I'd most like to see is a deal of TA, either Scal or Davis in a sign and trade, and Giddens or Walker to bring on a solid perimeter defender who can legitimately play the 3 and can contribute some minutes at either the 2 or, ideally, the 4. That kind of move gets us a legit 7th player (with Sheed as the 6th, House as the 8th) and clears up 1 or 2 roster spaces so that we have space for Powe as a 5th big behind Perk, KG, Wallace and Scal or Davis. We'd have Pierce, Allen, the trade acquisition and House, with the remaining player between Giddens and Walker as a 5th wing, plus Rondo and a backup point signing (I'm fine with Marbury at the veteran's minimum with that squad). That's 12 guys, and we can use the last three spots on any of the following: a wing at the LLE if one comes by, a second player kicked into the trade above, Hudson, a young project (a summer league guy, even Swift), a veteran addition.

But as with others, unless a trade like that comes along, we just have little space, and I definitely will be bummed out if we lose a guy like Powe because of bad former signings and a surplus of project players, considering we'd be losing one of the projects that actually worked out.

Yeah.  A trade like that would be good.  But I don't blame Danny on not offering Powe the QO before such a deal goes down.  While we'd all like to see such a trade, who knows if any team would actually want to do it. 

I hope one does go down though, and Powe does come back. 

Re: Im questioning Ainge
« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2009, 06:51:12 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
I've stated this same argument in about three different threads. I think BudweiserCeltic summed it all up best.

I don't understand the outrage at all. There's no space for him at the moment, sad story but "crap" happens.

We have 11 players currently in our roster. Then we have Big Baby, that's 12. We plan to add another PF/C (Rasheed)... that's 13. We plan to add another SF (Ross, Hill, Barnes, etc.), that's 14. We are probably looking for another PG (Hudson, Marbury, etc.). That's 15.

Where does Powe and his massive injury fit at the moment? Nowhere. We could probably cur Pruitt, but it won't be to add an injured player... who knows, maybe he starts playing better. You can't make Pruitt the victim here, he deserves the chance to make the roster.

Before this happened, there were tons of speculations that this coming FA season, the Celtics will have to choose between Baby and Powe... by the majority this was an accepted turn of events, well we chose one. Too bad Powe is injured, but we're not a charity here.
I love Powe, but not extending him the QO and saying we won't offer him a contract until after we've finished filling out our bench makes sense. We don't know if Powe will be able to contribute at all this coming season.


You talk about Sam Cassell, but we didn't sign him until the summer FA was already all over and we had extra room. If we have only 14 players I'm sure Ainge will be calling Powe up about a minimum deal.
Your logic is lost on me.  Take a look back at that roster.  Powe is currently more talented and has more potential than Ross/Hill/Barnes, Marbury/Hudson, Walker, Pruitt, Giddens, Scalabrine, and Tony Allen.
So i don't see a spot for Powe either, i see 7.  And that's not even factoring in how much more valuable big men are to us at the moment (and in general), AND the fact that it's much less risky to keep someone who we know can play well with our team than to surf around the free market.  Please stop your lame attempts to try and rationalize this poor decision.

yes, he is more talented than those guys. there is also a good chance that he won't suit up this year AT ALL.

Of course his agent is going to say that he's ahead of schedule, do you think he's going to come out and say different?

even if he's ahead of schedule, we're still talking about a christmas time return to basketball activities. Who knows how long after that until he's ready to contribute on a regular basis? and that assumes the Christmas return, which is the absolute best case scenario.

I love leon, i hope the way this shakes out is that we end up with 14 players on the roster, and at the end of the summer FA period we pick him up to sit on the bench until he's ready.

But as bud has pointed out we do not have alot of roster spots at the moment, and we need to stay flexable. I put the chances that any team actually offers a player who can't suit up until 3/4ths of the way through the year a contract this summer as nearly nil.

That's not to say i don't think teams haven't called leon, but i'm sure its just "when your ready, we will have interest" calls, not "we're looking to sign you to sit on our bench for free money on july 8th" calls.

All ainge said when asked about leon is that they have to stay flexible on roster spots. That's not the same as "we're never going to sign him" it just means we need to deal with players who will actually help us out next year first before we consider using a roster spot on an inactive player.



 
Try that again.
Best case scenario: he makes a full recovery by Christmas (or shortly thereafter), provides the needed support he has in the past, continues to play better and reaches his full potential (or surprises us all and has a break-through year), and the Celtics continue to utilize him for the many seasons he has left in him.
Worst case scenario: he recovers later than expected and only provides limited support or warms the bench instead of whoever else will have that job this year, costs the Celtics a whopping minimum salary, the fans are happy for at least giving him a shot, Powe continues to make Boston look good for having players that give back to the community, the Celtics don't get a reputation for dropping non all star players the second they get an injury, and we drop Powe off the roster next year when we know he's not worth it.
Whereas in your scenario, the best case is the same (except Powe will probably be back with a slightly more sour attitude toward the management) and the worst case looks something like this:  Davis doesn't resign, and the front court is left to the support of Scalabrine, the MLE, and whatever minimum salary players you can find (hopefully guys like Mikki Moore!), meanwhile Powe signs with another team and kicks our ass.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale