Author Topic: What if Celtics 100M payroll  (Read 1422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What if Celtics 100M payroll
« on: October 04, 2012, 09:22:25 AM »

Offline celts60

  • MarShon Brooks
  • Posts: 16
  • Tommy Points: 2
My fantasy question is: if Danny had 100M (roughly the Lakers' payroll for 2012/13) to work with this year, which free agents do you think he would have pursued? (Let's assume that DHoward remained disinterested in coming to Boston)

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 09:24:28 AM »

Online wdleehi

  • Forums ViceRoy
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30827
  • Tommy Points: 1359
  • Pre-school artwork
A few more min guys.



Just because the owner says he can spend that money doesn't change that the rules prevent him from just spending that much through FA.



He could pick up more money in trades, that's it. 


Running the Clippers with Redz.

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 10:02:36 AM »

Offline mgent

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
  • Tommy Points: 606
With no restrictions he probably would've given Ray 8 million a year, or whatever it took to keep him out of Florida.  Other than that I doubt he would've given out any other debilitating contracts.  Maybe he'd have thrown money at Camby or Stiemsma instead of signing Collins.

The only way to get to the Lakers' level is to bring back your entire team every year while continuously adding the MLE, and handing out unnecessary Bird Right deals like Walton.
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

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 10:21:55 AM »

Offline sofutomygaha

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1540
  • Tommy Points: 208
I don't think they would spend that money, but if they did I think that they would have made offers to Eric Gordon and Roy Hibbert. They probably wouldn't have gotten either one, of course.

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 11:06:22 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
KG, Pierce, and Rondo would all be making more per year. Maybe Bass too.  The roster probably wouldn't be much different.

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 11:32:33 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 216
A 100M Celtics payroll would include Ray Allen, Nenad Krstic, and someone whom they brought in for the mini MLE of $3 million.  Because he was so popular here, I'll say Stiemsma. We also can offer Pietrus 20% more than the vet min in this scenario, so perhaps he stays.  We can keep Joseph and Christmas if you like, but they're cheap, so we might as well pay vets that Doc will actually play.  So we should keep Daniels.  We'll also assume that Dooling still retires, but that we replace him with a point guard currently available, since now we don't have Terry, and do have Krstic and Stiemsma.  I'll pick Jannero Pargo, because the Wizards just signed him and I've always been a fan of the Pargos.  But to get to $100 Million, he really just would have had to throw money at the Celtics players he chose to re-sign.  If you think Jeff Green is making too much now, just imagine that.

Here's an example of what it might look like:

Pierce -- $16,790,345
Garnett -- $16,000,000
Allen -- $12,500,000
Green -- $12,000,000
Rondo -- $11,000,000
Bass -- $9,000,000
Krstic -- $9,000,000
Stiemsma -- $3,000,000
Dooling -- $2,200,000
Bradley -- $1,630,800
Pietrus -- $1,622,167
Sullinger -- $1,306,920
Melo -- $1,254,720
Wilcox -- $854,389 (salary actually higher, but the league reimburses vet mins)
Daniels -- $854,389 (see Wilcox)
Pargo -- $854,389 (see Wilcox)

Total: $99,868,569

I like our real team more, but this team probably lets KG stay at the 4 for most of the game, and keeps Ray and Pietrus, so I suppose that an argument could be made for this one.  Still, it's not appreciably better (arguably worse, because once Dooling retires we really have no one behind Rondo) and costs about $26 million more.

The thing this team could have is a lot of expiring contracts to trade away in the next 2 years, to pair with draft picks and young players to get stars.  For instance, suppose Green were getting paid $12 million for this year only (because he's getting paid $12 mil, and thus doesn't need a long-term deal.)  Now you can trade him to Atlanta with Sullinger and/or Melo and/or pick(s) to Atlanta for Josh Smith, and Atlanta doesn't have to take on expensive, long-term obligations.  (Why, I'm not sure, because we've got KG playing the 4, but you could.)  But signing players just to trade them away is a risky endeavor in team-building, and more likely than not to blow up in your face.

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2012, 09:15:27 PM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213
If the Cs ever gave Krstic $9m a year, I'd become a hockey fan instead of supporting the Cs any more. 

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2012, 04:25:42 AM »

Offline nostar

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 532
  • Tommy Points: 51
I really don't think that the 100M payroll would just equal us paying more for players.

I think if we had the revenue sources to pay out the nose we'd have gone after someone big. I agree we might have tried to pay Ray more. I am really  glad we didn't. From all I've heard he was really unhappy here and I'm glad he's gone for our sake.

I think we'd have tried to get KG a real center. Maybe Hibbert or Lopez. Some legitimate low post threat would give this team the thing it's been lacking for so long.

Re: What if Celtics 100M payroll
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2012, 06:49:51 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11935
  • Tommy Points: 1139
I don't understand this exercise, since payroll doesn't equal buying power.

You have salary cap, you have restrictions and limited exceptions that will allow us to pursue X amount of players at a limited price.

So, 70 million in payroll or 100 million in payroll for all intents and purposes wouldn't have allowed us to get anything different than what we already got. In fact, it would've hindered it.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog