[Woj] Charlotte finalizing multi-year extension with Kidd-Gilchrist.

[BDeCosta26]

Wait so, people love Kidd-Gilchrist for $52 million for his potential (even though statistically he's in no way worth that kind of money) but want to cut James Young (who has more potential offensively) on a rookie scale contract? 

You are new around here so I'll let you in on a secret.  There's a portion of the folks around here for whom current non-Celtics player > current Celtics player and other team's moves > Ainge's moves.

That's why you get drooling over this MKG deal after so much gnashing of teeth over Bradley's deal or why there's so much love for the proven-nothing MKG and disdain for not-even-had-a-chance Young.

Mike

To be fair MKG is more proven than Young (I know he hasn't been given too many chances but still.) and has more upside than Bradley.

Totally true, but Mike makes a good point. When AB got his deal, some folks around here lamented it as this god awful deal. Some folks were smart enough to see that it would look MUCH better in a year or twos time, but all the way up until seasons end I heard a bunch of people use the word "overpaid" when it came to AB.

I think it speaks to this idea people have that "Player X is just a role player, he shouldn't make more than X percent of your cap" when that is just not the way it works. There's a whole host of things that go into what a players contract is, but chief among them is current market rates. What did a comparable player get on his most recent deal and what are the kind of offers Player X is gonna get if he hits the market?

With so many teams looking at large amounts of available cap-space and a limited pool of FA's coming up, GMs are going to NEED to spend that money. If you go into it saying "I'm not spending more than X% of my cap on a perimeter defensive role player" you'll end up losing out on both resigning your own guys and new FA's because someone else will pay them more than that number.

Surely you still want to avoid albatross contracts, and you have to make a decision about weather or not Player X is worth "overpaying". But especially when it comes to young guys like Bradley or MKG locking them up at that higher number before they can even hit the market (where that number is just going to rise) is a smart play in today's market.

I mean, is it really "overpaying" if the market for that guy would've given him more than your offering?

That's something DA has done pretty well. Bradley for 8M a year is a great contract for a very good role player. An absolute steal in today's market. The Crowder deal looks great too. In an environment where contracts are reaching insane levels, to be able to reach high-value deals with guys who could get considerably more elsewhere speaks well about Ainge and the C's organization. Even with Amir Johnson, that may be an "overpay" at 12M/year but the entire second year is non-guaranteed? Jerebko at 5M with the same structure? That type of negotiating skills bodes well for us going forward in the rebuild.

[Moranis]

Wait so, people love Kidd-Gilchrist for $52 million for his potential (even though statistically he's in no way worth that kind of money) but want to cut James Young (who has more potential offensively) on a rookie scale contract? 

You are new around here so I'll let you in on a secret.  There's a portion of the folks around here for whom current non-Celtics player > current Celtics player and other team's moves > Ainge's moves.

That's why you get drooling over this MKG deal after so much gnashing of teeth over Bradley's deal or why there's so much love for the proven-nothing MKG and disdain for not-even-had-a-chance Young.

Mike

To be fair MKG is more proven than Young (I know he hasn't been given too many chances but still.) and has more upside than Bradley.

Totally true, but Mike makes a good point. When AB got his deal, some folks around here lamented it as this god awful deal. Some folks were smart enough to see that it would look MUCH better in a year or twos time, but all the way up until seasons end I heard a bunch of people use the word "overpaid" when it came to AB.

I think it speaks to this idea people have that "Player X is just a role player, he shouldn't make more than X percent of your cap" when that is just not the way it works. There's a whole host of things that go into what a players contract is, but chief among them is current market rates. What did a comparable player get on his most recent deal and what are the kind of offers Player X is gonna get if he hits the market?

With so many teams looking at large amounts of available cap-space and a limited pool of FA's coming up, GMs are going to NEED to spend that money. If you go into it saying "I'm not spending more than X% of my cap on a perimeter defensive role player" you'll end up losing out on both resigning your own guys and new FA's because someone else will pay them more than that number.

Surely you still want to avoid albatross contracts, and you have to make a decision about weather or not Player X is worth "overpaying". But especially when it comes to young guys like Bradley or MKG locking them up at that higher number before they can even hit the market (where that number is just going to rise) is a smart play in today's market.

I mean, is it really "overpaying" if the market for that guy would've given him more than your offering?

That's something DA has done pretty well. Bradley for 8M a year is a great contract for a very good role player. An absolute steal in today's market. The Crowder deal looks great too. In an environment where contracts are reaching insane levels, to be able to reach high-value deals with guys who could get considerably more elsewhere speaks well about Ainge and the C's organization. Even with Amir Johnson, that may be an "overpay" at 12M/year but the entire second year is non-guaranteed? Jerebko at 5M with the same structure? That type of negotiating skills bodes well for us going forward in the rebuild.

I don't disagree with you, but there is no point in signing role players when you don't have your championship core in place because you can always find role players later on.  If you are the Cavs you can overpay for guys like Shumpert and Thompson, but a team like the Celtics and Hornets, shouldn't be overpaying anyone and probably shouldn't bother locking up anyone long term unless said player can be a foundational piece to a title team.  There is no reason to lose flexibility when you aren't a real contender, especially when said player will be a restricted free agent and the market will set his price.  That is something Philly has done very well.  They haven't locked up mid-tier players because they just aren't ready to compete.  You get the mid-tier players when you are ready to compete. 

Now obviously if you can lock up a guy at below market value, or what you perceive to be below market value, then you should always do that.

[D.o.s.]

Wait so, people love Kidd-Gilchrist for $52 million for his potential (even though statistically he's in no way worth that kind of money) but want to cut James Young (who has more potential offensively) on a rookie scale contract? 

You are new around here so I'll let you in on a secret.  There's a portion of the folks around here for whom current non-Celtics player > current Celtics player and other team's moves > Ainge's moves.

That's why you get drooling over this MKG deal after so much gnashing of teeth over Bradley's deal or why there's so much love for the proven-nothing MKG and disdain for not-even-had-a-chance Young.

Mike

To be fair MKG is more proven than Young (I know he hasn't been given too many chances but still.) and has more upside than Bradley.

Totally true, but Mike makes a good point. When AB got his deal, some folks around here lamented it as this god awful deal. Some folks were smart enough to see that it would look MUCH better in a year or twos time, but all the way up until seasons end I heard a bunch of people use the word "overpaid" when it came to AB.

I think it speaks to this idea people have that "Player X is just a role player, he shouldn't make more than X percent of your cap" when that is just not the way it works. There's a whole host of things that go into what a players contract is, but chief among them is current market rates. What did a comparable player get on his most recent deal and what are the kind of offers Player X is gonna get if he hits the market?

With so many teams looking at large amounts of available cap-space and a limited pool of FA's coming up, GMs are going to NEED to spend that money. If you go into it saying "I'm not spending more than X% of my cap on a perimeter defensive role player" you'll end up losing out on both resigning your own guys and new FA's because someone else will pay them more than that number.

Surely you still want to avoid albatross contracts, and you have to make a decision about weather or not Player X is worth "overpaying". But especially when it comes to young guys like Bradley or MKG locking them up at that higher number before they can even hit the market (where that number is just going to rise) is a smart play in today's market.

I mean, is it really "overpaying" if the market for that guy would've given him more than your offering?

That's something DA has done pretty well. Bradley for 8M a year is a great contract for a very good role player. An absolute steal in today's market. The Crowder deal looks great too. In an environment where contracts are reaching insane levels, to be able to reach high-value deals with guys who could get considerably more elsewhere speaks well about Ainge and the C's organization. Even with Amir Johnson, that may be an "overpay" at 12M/year but the entire second year is non-guaranteed? Jerebko at 5M with the same structure? That type of negotiating skills bodes well for us going forward in the rebuild.

Like I said earlier, it depends on the context. Bradley was overpaid relative to the shooting guards that were getting new contracts around him (Jodie Meeks is the first one that springs to mind), and the fact that Ainge seemed to be bidding against himself didn't do anything to assuage that viewpoint. The fact that it looks like a deal now is another, equally valid, way of looking at the contract. It's a pure version of "glass is half full/glass is half empty", because either way, both sides are looking at the glass.

In fact, bringing the "these people said Bradley was overpaid but they love MKG's deal, look at the hypocrisy!" statement is the most detrimental to the discussion, because you're talking about apples and chainsaws in order to take potshots at a perceived viewpoint you don't agree with.

[saltlover]

Totally true, but Mike makes a good point. When AB got his deal, some folks around here lamented it as this god awful deal. Some folks were smart enough to see that it would look MUCH better in a year or twos time, but all the way up until seasons end I heard a bunch of people use the word "overpaid" when it came to AB.

I think it speaks to this idea people have that "Player X is just a role player, he shouldn't make more than X percent of your cap" when that is just not the way it works. There's a whole host of things that go into what a players contract is, but chief among them is current market rates. What did a comparable player get on his most recent deal and what are the kind of offers Player X is gonna get if he hits the market?

With so many teams looking at large amounts of available cap-space and a limited pool of FA's coming up, GMs are going to NEED to spend that money. If you go into it saying "I'm not spending more than X% of my cap on a perimeter defensive role player" you'll end up losing out on both resigning your own guys and new FA's because someone else will pay them more than that number.

Surely you still want to avoid albatross contracts, and you have to make a decision about weather or not Player X is worth "overpaying". But especially when it comes to young guys like Bradley or MKG locking them up at that higher number before they can even hit the market (where that number is just going to rise) is a smart play in today's market.

I mean, is it really "overpaying" if the market for that guy would've given him more than your offering?

That's something DA has done pretty well. Bradley for 8M a year is a great contract for a very good role player. An absolute steal in today's market. The Crowder deal looks great too. In an environment where contracts are reaching insane levels, to be able to reach high-value deals with guys who could get considerably more elsewhere speaks well about Ainge and the C's organization. Even with Amir Johnson, that may be an "overpay" at 12M/year but the entire second year is non-guaranteed? Jerebko at 5M with the same structure? That type of negotiating skills bodes well for us going forward in the rebuild.

I don't disagree with you, but there is no point in signing role players when you don't have your championship core in place because you can always find role players later on.  If you are the Cavs you can overpay for guys like Shumpert and Thompson, but a team like the Celtics and Hornets, shouldn't be overpaying anyone and probably shouldn't bother locking up anyone long term unless said player can be a foundational piece to a title team.  There is no reason to lose flexibility when you aren't a real contender, especially when said player will be a restricted free agent and the market will set his price.  That is something Philly has done very well.  They haven't locked up mid-tier players because they just aren't ready to compete.  You get the mid-tier players when you are ready to compete. 

Now obviously if you can lock up a guy at below market value, or what you perceive to be below market value, then you should always do that.

I think it's time to slow down on the "get your stars first" myth.  Why has LA been rejected the last 2-3 free agency rounds?  Because that team is Kobe and scrubs.  Same with the Knicks this summerZ. Phoenix nearly got LMA because they showed him a solid foundation of a team and showed how he would fit in.  In the new NBA with ever shorter contracts (3 years and an option year at the end) for the stars, no one wants to wait and see what that team will look like in a year or two when the surrounding parts are acquired.  The stars want to see how they fit in to an already built roster.

Now, you don't want to tie up so much payroll that you can't afford a star who's willing to come there -- there are limits.  But it's okay to have a decent roster needing 1-2 players to headline it before you actually get those players.

[Moranis]

Totally true, but Mike makes a good point. When AB got his deal, some folks around here lamented it as this god awful deal. Some folks were smart enough to see that it would look MUCH better in a year or twos time, but all the way up until seasons end I heard a bunch of people use the word "overpaid" when it came to AB.

I think it speaks to this idea people have that "Player X is just a role player, he shouldn't make more than X percent of your cap" when that is just not the way it works. There's a whole host of things that go into what a players contract is, but chief among them is current market rates. What did a comparable player get on his most recent deal and what are the kind of offers Player X is gonna get if he hits the market?

With so many teams looking at large amounts of available cap-space and a limited pool of FA's coming up, GMs are going to NEED to spend that money. If you go into it saying "I'm not spending more than X% of my cap on a perimeter defensive role player" you'll end up losing out on both resigning your own guys and new FA's because someone else will pay them more than that number.

Surely you still want to avoid albatross contracts, and you have to make a decision about weather or not Player X is worth "overpaying". But especially when it comes to young guys like Bradley or MKG locking them up at that higher number before they can even hit the market (where that number is just going to rise) is a smart play in today's market.

I mean, is it really "overpaying" if the market for that guy would've given him more than your offering?

That's something DA has done pretty well. Bradley for 8M a year is a great contract for a very good role player. An absolute steal in today's market. The Crowder deal looks great too. In an environment where contracts are reaching insane levels, to be able to reach high-value deals with guys who could get considerably more elsewhere speaks well about Ainge and the C's organization. Even with Amir Johnson, that may be an "overpay" at 12M/year but the entire second year is non-guaranteed? Jerebko at 5M with the same structure? That type of negotiating skills bodes well for us going forward in the rebuild.

I don't disagree with you, but there is no point in signing role players when you don't have your championship core in place because you can always find role players later on.  If you are the Cavs you can overpay for guys like Shumpert and Thompson, but a team like the Celtics and Hornets, shouldn't be overpaying anyone and probably shouldn't bother locking up anyone long term unless said player can be a foundational piece to a title team.  There is no reason to lose flexibility when you aren't a real contender, especially when said player will be a restricted free agent and the market will set his price.  That is something Philly has done very well.  They haven't locked up mid-tier players because they just aren't ready to compete.  You get the mid-tier players when you are ready to compete. 

Now obviously if you can lock up a guy at below market value, or what you perceive to be below market value, then you should always do that.

I think it's time to slow down on the "get your stars first" myth.  Why has LA been rejected the last 2-3 free agency rounds?  Because that team is Kobe and scrubs.  Same with the Knicks this summerZ. Phoenix nearly got LMA because they showed him a solid foundation of a team and showed how he would fit in.  In the new NBA with ever shorter contracts (3 years and an option year at the end) for the stars, no one wants to wait and see what that team will look like in a year or two when the surrounding parts are acquired.  The stars want to see how they fit in to an already built roster.

Now, you don't want to tie up so much payroll that you can't afford a star who's willing to come there -- there are limits.  But it's okay to have a decent roster needing 1-2 players to headline it before you actually get those players.

and yet Aldridge signed in San Antonio where Kawhi Leonard was waiting and James went to Cleveland which had Kyrie Irving.  Last time I checked, those two "sitting" players are pretty good.  Even Greg Monroe went to a team that has potential stars in Parker and Giannis (and MCW isn't exactly terrible either).  Those are places where a "star" could be the missing piece, not places where the "star" is the first piece.  Players aren't going to go play for a team full of role players because even with them that team is not a contender.  Durant isn't leaving OKC to go to a team of role players, if he leaves he will go to a team like Washington that has Wall and Beal (as well as some nice role players).   

[Csfan1984]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

[Endless Paradise]

Contracts aren't based on analogy and style is not a sufficient justification for equating players.

No, but you can most certainly equate players' roles on their respective teams. The Warriors and the Hornets signed Iguodala and MKG to those contracts primarily because of their wing defense.

[fairweatherfan]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

Not that we could've known at the time, but unless Posey could've somehow prevented KG's knee injury, we weren't getting that second ring with or without him.

[Moranis]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

Not that we could've known at the time, but unless Posey could've somehow prevented KG's knee injury, we weren't getting that second ring with or without him.

um Boston lost a 7 game series in the nba finals.  good chance that Posey could have made a difference in that series, especially game 7 without Perk that Boston lost by 4.

[MJohnnyboy]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

Not that we could've known at the time, but unless Posey could've somehow prevented KG's knee injury, we weren't getting that second ring with or without him.

um Boston lost a 7 game series in the nba finals.  good chance that Posey could have made a difference in that series, especially game 7 without Perk that Boston lost by 4.

No he wouldn't have. 2010 was the year Pose became as useful as Michael Finley on that Celtics team.

[saltlover]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

Not that we could've known at the time, but unless Posey could've somehow prevented KG's knee injury, we weren't getting that second ring with or without him.

um Boston lost a 7 game series in the nba finals.  good chance that Posey could have made a difference in that series, especially game 7 without Perk that Boston lost by 4.

Um, 2010 James Posey that shot 36% from the field, and saw his steals cut in half from 2 years earlier?  2008 James Posey would have been great to have that year, but we got his last good season with Banner 17.

[MJohnnyboy]

See this is why Ainge is a better GM than some GMs. MKG is like 80% of Avery B, but they're gonna pay him almost 200% of what AB will make.

I agree DA is better than a lot of other GMs but let's not let DA off the hook completely when it comes to cost control of role players. DA should have paid the extra year on Posey but went cheap. That I believe cost the team another ring. You can overpay once you have a big three and starting 5 locked up as in what C's had.

It's not that we were unwilling to overpay Posey for 1 year out of 4, it's that we were willing to overpay him for 2 years out of 3, but not 3 out of 4.  His contract was an albatross by the 2nd season, to the point that he was paid not to play in year 4.

The failure to resign Tony Allen at a younger age for fewer $ is to me a much more indefensible decision during the Big 3 era.

I'd deal with the year or two for that second ring. And completely forgot about TA. That is another role player they should have paid more to keep. Like AJ make short but high to keep TA.

Not that we could've known at the time, but unless Posey could've somehow prevented KG's knee injury, we weren't getting that second ring with or without him.

um Boston lost a 7 game series in the nba finals.  good chance that Posey could have made a difference in that series, especially game 7 without Perk that Boston lost by 4.

Um, 2010 James Posey that shot 36% from the field, and saw his steals cut in half from 2 years earlier?  2008 James Posey would have been great to have that year, but we got his last good season with Banner 17.

In 2009 he was still good, but otherwise I agree. Its not worth giving a role player that big of a contract to play one good year out of 4 especially considering the Celtics were Perkins injury away from winning without him anyway.

[freshinthehouse]

In 2009 he was still good, but otherwise I agree. Its not worth giving a role player that big of a contract to play one good year out of 4 especially considering the Celtics were Perkins injury away from winning without him anyway.

TP+.  Posey was toast by 2010.  Ask any Hornets fan.  Dude signed a four year deal.  Was awful/out of the league for 3 of them.  DA did good not to resign him.

[Csfan1984]

Some of you are crazy. If Posey would have got this team another ring who cares if he was bad last 2 years. Not like C's won any more rings at all. And what did they do with the slight cap space? Add the likes of the O'Neal(s) and Wallace. Again much rather another ring.

[MJohnnyboy]

Some of you are crazy. If Posey would have got this team another ring who cares if he was bad last 2 years. Not like C's won any more rings at all. And what did they do with the slight cap space? Add the likes of the O'Neal(s) and Wallace. Again much rather another ring.

As others have alluded to, Posey would not have gotten the Celtics to another championship because of KG's knee in 2009, and as I've said before, Posey stopped being good after 2009, so no, it would not have been worth it. Not only would the Celtics have been ringless but people would have been peeved at Danny for giving him that contract.