Bogut Has Strong Interest in Joining C's (Update: Chooses Cavs)

[saltlover]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

My issue is that the expectation that players will be bought out and sign with the top three teams creates an unfair playing field.  The Cavs knew last week before the trade deadline they could sign Deron Williams, even as the Mavs were looking to trade him.  This a) means the Cavs didn't have to make a trade for a backup PG, b) hurt the Mavs ability to trade Deron to another team, as he would be unhappy not to get to go to Cleveland, and c) since this happens every year, the Cavs know they can start the season with 2-3 holes on their roster that they'll get to fill at the end of February, while 27 or so teams have to fill those holes in July.  It perpetuates the super teams.  Players like Deron can sign a 1-year deal with the Mavs for good money ($9 million) and then get to ring chase for the minimum salary all in the same season.

Part of it is on the owners/GMs too, for granting guys their release, but it's really frustrating.  I wish they'd fixed that in the CBA negotiations, as I bet it's only going to get worse.  They should make anyone on an NBA roster as of the trade deadline ineligible for the playoffs if they subsequently sign with a new team.  Why should Ainge trade for PJ Tucker to close the gap if he knows the Cavs are goo going to get two players of similar quality for free?

Just don't see a problem with it. When you are good, like the Celtics were in 2008, it works for you. When you aren't good, it doesn't. Simple solution: get good enough so that these types of free agents want to join your team.

Yes, but it's different than 2008.  PJ Brown hadn't been with a team all season -- he'd just been resting at home.  Sam Cassell was 38, and was in the last year of a long deal.  Neither would play another minute in the NBA after that season.  Deron is 32, was playing 30 minutes a game for a team that had a chance at the playoffs, and had signed a one year deal at well above the MLE.  Bogut is also 32, although he'd at least already been traded to a team that had no intention of keeping him -- he bothers me less.  Even so, while Bogut's situation is closer to Sam Cassell, there's no comparison to Deron that I can think of in any year prior.  But you can be certain there will be in the future.

It allows a select few teams to be very top-heavy in salary structure without worrying about depth, because that problem can be solved in March.  Maybe it will benefit the Celtics in two years if we become top-heavy, but probably it won't, since we'll actually be using our roster spots all year long.

It's just bad for competition.  I don't like it.  And it's different this year than it has been in the past.

[nickagneta]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

My issue is that the expectation that players will be bought out and sign with the top three teams creates an unfair playing field.  The Cavs knew last week before the trade deadline they could sign Deron Williams, even as the Mavs were looking to trade him.  This a) means the Cavs didn't have to make a trade for a backup PG, b) hurt the Mavs ability to trade Deron to another team, as he would be unhappy not to get to go to Cleveland, and c) since this happens every year, the Cavs know they can start the season with 2-3 holes on their roster that they'll get to fill at the end of February, while 27 or so teams have to fill those holes in July.  It perpetuates the super teams.  Players like Deron can sign a 1-year deal with the Mavs for good money ($9 million) and then get to ring chase for the minimum salary all in the same season.

Part of it is on the owners/GMs too, for granting guys their release, but it's really frustrating.  I wish they'd fixed that in the CBA negotiations, as I bet it's only going to get worse.  They should make anyone on an NBA roster as of the trade deadline ineligible for the playoffs if they subsequently sign with a new team.  Why should Ainge trade for PJ Tucker to close the gap if he knows the Cavs are goo going to get two players of similar quality for free?

Just don't see a problem with it. When you are good, like the Celtics were in 2008, it works for you. When you aren't good, it doesn't. Simple solution: get good enough so that these types of free agents want to join your team.

Yes, but it's different than 2008.  PJ Brown hadn't been with a team all season -- he'd just been resting at home.  Sam Cassell was 38, and was in the last year of a long deal.  Neither would play another minute in the NBA after that season.  Deron is 32, was playing 30 minutes a game for a team that had a chance at the playoffs, and had signed a one year deal at well above the MLE.  Bogut is also 32, although he'd at least already been traded to a team that had no intention of keeping him -- he bothers me less.  Even so, while Bogut's situation is closer to Sam Cassell, there's no comparison to Deron that I can think of in any year prior.  But you can be certain there will be in the future.

It allows a select few teams to be very top-heavy in salary structure without worrying about depth, because that problem can be solved in March.  Maybe it will benefit the Celtics in two years if we become top-heavy, but probably it won't, since we'll actually be using our roster spots all year long.

It's just bad for competition.  I don't like it.  And it's different this year than it has been in the past.

Again...just don't see a problem and I HATE that the Cavs got better but it happens. We will probably benefit from it at some point and then no one on this site will have a problem with it.

[chambers]

Very surprised by this. Must have promised him big minutes or maybe he really wants to beat the Warriors are dumping him.

Makes me even happier that Danny didn't give up BRK 17' for Butler or PG.

[jpotter33]

Thomas has never been a high volume chucker. He has had a TS% above 57% every year he has been in the league. Its above 62% this year. You can't be considered a high volume chucker if you have a pretty darn good true shooting percentage.

Not sure that TS% is the appropriate metric to use here, because it is heavily skewed to free throw attempts, which isn't necessarily related to being a volume scorer. IT has always excelled at getting to the line, so that has always skewed his TS% upwards.

He's certainly not an egregious volume scorer by any means, but I certainly think he had that type of reputation earlier in his career.

[fantankerous]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

My issue is that the expectation that players will be bought out and sign with the top three teams creates an unfair playing field.  The Cavs knew last week before the trade deadline they could sign Deron Williams, even as the Mavs were looking to trade him.  This a) means the Cavs didn't have to make a trade for a backup PG, b) hurt the Mavs ability to trade Deron to another team, as he would be unhappy not to get to go to Cleveland, and c) since this happens every year, the Cavs know they can start the season with 2-3 holes on their roster that they'll get to fill at the end of February, while 27 or so teams have to fill those holes in July.  It perpetuates the super teams.  Players like Deron can sign a 1-year deal with the Mavs for good money ($9 million) and then get to ring chase for the minimum salary all in the same season.

Part of it is on the owners/GMs too, for granting guys their release, but it's really frustrating.  I wish they'd fixed that in the CBA negotiations, as I bet it's only going to get worse.  They should make anyone on an NBA roster as of the trade deadline ineligible for the playoffs if they subsequently sign with a new team.  Why should Ainge trade for PJ Tucker to close the gap if he knows the Cavs are goo going to get two players of similar quality for free?

Just don't see a problem with it. When you are good, like the Celtics were in 2008, it works for you. When you aren't good, it doesn't. Simple solution: get good enough so that these types of free agents want to join your team.

Yes, but it's different than 2008.  PJ Brown hadn't been with a team all season -- he'd just been resting at home.  Sam Cassell was 38, and was in the last year of a long deal.  Neither would play another minute in the NBA after that season.  Deron is 32, was playing 30 minutes a game for a team that had a chance at the playoffs, and had signed a one year deal at well above the MLE.  Bogut is also 32, although he'd at least already been traded to a team that had no intention of keeping him -- he bothers me less.  Even so, while Bogut's situation is closer to Sam Cassell, there's no comparison to Deron that I can think of in any year prior.  But you can be certain there will be in the future.

It allows a select few teams to be very top-heavy in salary structure without worrying about depth, because that problem can be solved in March.  Maybe it will benefit the Celtics in two years if we become top-heavy, but probably it won't, since we'll actually be using our roster spots all year long.

It's just bad for competition.  I don't like it.  And it's different this year than it has been in the past.

Is the difference structural or schocastic?  Williams' last two teams let him go for nothing (not to mention the acrimonious breakup with Utah).  Bogut is a classic buy out situation.  Jones and Jennings appear to be teams wising up about the importance of culture (the wizards have never cared about culture).

[TomHeinsohn]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

Let me stop you right there. It actually is not a "free market". If it were, LeBron James would be bringing in 100 million per season. There are hundreds of rules and regulations regarding salary and contracts.

[saltlover]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

My issue is that the expectation that players will be bought out and sign with the top three teams creates an unfair playing field.  The Cavs knew last week before the trade deadline they could sign Deron Williams, even as the Mavs were looking to trade him.  This a) means the Cavs didn't have to make a trade for a backup PG, b) hurt the Mavs ability to trade Deron to another team, as he would be unhappy not to get to go to Cleveland, and c) since this happens every year, the Cavs know they can start the season with 2-3 holes on their roster that they'll get to fill at the end of February, while 27 or so teams have to fill those holes in July.  It perpetuates the super teams.  Players like Deron can sign a 1-year deal with the Mavs for good money ($9 million) and then get to ring chase for the minimum salary all in the same season.

Part of it is on the owners/GMs too, for granting guys their release, but it's really frustrating.  I wish they'd fixed that in the CBA negotiations, as I bet it's only going to get worse.  They should make anyone on an NBA roster as of the trade deadline ineligible for the playoffs if they subsequently sign with a new team.  Why should Ainge trade for PJ Tucker to close the gap if he knows the Cavs are goo going to get two players of similar quality for free?

Just don't see a problem with it. When you are good, like the Celtics were in 2008, it works for you. When you aren't good, it doesn't. Simple solution: get good enough so that these types of free agents want to join your team.

Yes, but it's different than 2008.  PJ Brown hadn't been with a team all season -- he'd just been resting at home.  Sam Cassell was 38, and was in the last year of a long deal.  Neither would play another minute in the NBA after that season.  Deron is 32, was playing 30 minutes a game for a team that had a chance at the playoffs, and had signed a one year deal at well above the MLE.  Bogut is also 32, although he'd at least already been traded to a team that had no intention of keeping him -- he bothers me less.  Even so, while Bogut's situation is closer to Sam Cassell, there's no comparison to Deron that I can think of in any year prior.  But you can be certain there will be in the future.

It allows a select few teams to be very top-heavy in salary structure without worrying about depth, because that problem can be solved in March.  Maybe it will benefit the Celtics in two years if we become top-heavy, but probably it won't, since we'll actually be using our roster spots all year long.

It's just bad for competition.  I don't like it.  And it's different this year than it has been in the past.

Is the difference structural or schocastic?  Williams' last two teams let him go for nothing (not to mention the acrimonious breakup with Utah).  Bogut is a classic buy out situation.  Jones and Jennings appear to be teams wising up about the importance of culture (the wizards have never cared about culture).

The Nets let Williams go because they were able to negotiate away a significant portion of what they owed him, enabling them to miss paying the luxury tax and saving $10's of millions in repeater tax penalties on top of the salary owed to Williams.  Don't confuse not being worth $30 million with being worthless.

I don't care about Jones at all.  He's not a rotation player on a good team.  I don't care about Bogut, Jennings, or Calderon either, except to note that there are more players of this caliber becoming available at this time of year than in prior years.  Combine that with Deron, and I don't like where things are heading.

[CroCorvus]

Sometimes I get this funny feeling that Danny just doesn't want to give this team a better chance  (sarcastic laugh)...

[Trifecta]

I guess since it's a given we aren't getting banner 18 then why should we even consider adding anyone? We should just cultivate our guys like Jackson & Mickey & Young. There is no reason to even try to rebound or win games. We should just tell all the fans that we have a boatload of assets and one day yes one day - you wait and see!

I think that we are going to have real trouble in round 1. Whoever we play will do the same type of defense on IT that Atlanta played and someone else will need to step up to fill the void. Problem is there is nobody that is reliable. The closest may be Smart because he is a winner or the rookie is stepping up big of late or maybe AB if he stays healthy. I think we squeak by a 1st round opponent in 7 games against a team like Indiana or Detroit. We probably lose in 7 games to Miami because they have a rim protector and rebounder.

There is no way we can beat anyone in the 2nd round unless the opponent has some major injuries. I love this team and will watch every game until it's over but I see it going nowhere. Evidently the ownership/management doesn't feel we can go all the way so there is no need to add any players or lose any of our assets. Waiting for ping pong balls to determine our fate.

I would be very surprised if we made it out of the first round. Just my opinion. I hope I'm wrong.

Which is totally fine, let the young guys learn experiences and next year is our turn

Is the goal not to improve though? As a fan, it bothers me that we're not looking to at least make progress.

If the team makes the second round of the playoffs, will they not have improved? The Celtics haven't been ousted from the playoffs yet. They could easily make it to the second round of the playoffs without having made a move and so improved the team over last year.

I agree. They could get to the second round and have "improved", but there are moves that could've been made to improve glaring deficiencies on this team. Deficiencies in which could very well be the reason this team fails to win a series.. You wouldn't have to sacrifice the future to make said moves either. That's all I'm saying. Bradley coming back should help a bit though. Excited to see this team healthy for once.

[nickagneta]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

Let me stop you right there. It actually is not a "free market". If it were, LeBron James would be bringing in 100 million per season. There are hundreds of rules and regulations regarding salary and contracts.

When it comes to deciding where they want to play when free agents and how much they decide to take as compensation for that, in that regard, it is a free market,

[TomHeinsohn]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

Let me stop you right there. It actually is not a "free market". If it were, LeBron James would be bringing in 100 million per season. There are hundreds of rules and regulations regarding salary and contracts.

When it comes to deciding where they want to play when free agents and how much they decide to take as compensation for that, in that regard, it is a free market,

This is borderline circular logic... You're stating basically that it is a free market, once the constraints of the market have been satisfied

[Roy H.]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

Let me stop you right there. It actually is not a "free market". If it were, LeBron James would be bringing in 100 million per season. There are hundreds of rules and regulations regarding salary and contracts.

When it comes to deciding where they want to play when free agents and how much they decide to take as compensation for that, in that regard, it is a free market,

This is borderline circular logic... You're stating basically that it is a free market, once the constraints of the market have been satisfied

It's a market where unrestricted free agents can sign to play wherever they please. Players are free to sacrifice dollars for location, a better chance at a ring, etc. Taking that choice away from veterans - who have already had their freedom restricted once by the draft and restricted free agency - is something the union will never go for.

[celticsclay]

Veteran players that have been in the league for a while and made good money should be "appraised" in the event they are bought out or waived. They should then not be permitted to sign for significantly less than their appraised value to just chase a ring.

Its a free market. The players got bought out or waived so they have been paid their money already. Why shouldn't they be able to decide to take a pro-rated minimum contract to play wherever they want? They are free agents. They can do and go wherever they please. The Celtics have benefitted from this in the past and probably will again in the future. I don't see an issue.

Let me stop you right there. It actually is not a "free market". If it were, LeBron James would be bringing in 100 million per season. There are hundreds of rules and regulations regarding salary and contracts.

When it comes to deciding where they want to play when free agents and how much they decide to take as compensation for that, in that regard, it is a free market,

This is borderline circular logic... You're stating basically that it is a free market, once the constraints of the market have been satisfied

It's a market where unrestricted free agents can sign to play wherever they please. Players are free to sacrifice dollars for location, a better chance at a ring, etc. Taking that choice away from veterans - who have already had their freedom restricted once by the draft and restricted free agency - is something the union will never go for.

Would it really shock you to see the CBA implement some sort of rule limiting teams to one bought out player signed per season? They have already tweaked one rule recently by not allowing players to go back to a team for a year (which came in to play with Bogut).

I do think the NBA has a problem with there being a 75-85% chance of the same two teams meeting in the finals again and there has to be some steps made to stop super teams from dominating the league and making entire fan bases lose interest.

The hard cap and luxury tax were put in place to stop teams from adding endless talented veterans to their rosters. Williams and Bogut at minimums after getting their money elsewhere is a loophole around this.

While people will try to argue this, it is bad for the league to have this dominant teams. Ratings are down across the league and you have some teams basically saying they are not going to give up future assets (hello celtics) when they wont make them as good as a super team that already exists. That hurts interests in many of the leagues franchises and regular season viewing (obviously the finals will be highly rated, but it is a max of 7 games). Look no further than tonight's schedule for a view into this. You have toronto playing washington in two of the top 4 teams in the league including a wizards team that is having their best season in what 2 decades?

But who really cares? Nobody thinks either of those teams has a shot at the finals and are left hoping for a competitive playoff series against the Juggernaut cavs. How much harder does that make it to get excited and watch this regular season game? Out west you have the Rockets and Clippers. Again the Rockets are the surprise team of the NBA this year and exceeding all expectations, but as evidenced in the thread literally today "maybe they can beat the warriors if Durant is injured." Who is going to get excited about what in years past would represent legit title contenders?

[nickagneta]

I do think the NBA has a problem with there being a 75-85% chance of the same two teams meeting in the finals again and there has to be some steps made to stop super teams from dominating the league and making entire fan bases lose interest.
 

I don't know where I read it but I am pretty sure it has been shown that having superteams face each other for a number of years in a row is actually good for the league because the television ratings seem to go through the roof when this happens. I might be wrong but I could have sworn I read an article about this once with some good stats to back it up.

[Ilikesports17]

I do think the NBA has a problem with there being a 75-85% chance of the same two teams meeting in the finals again and there has to be some steps made to stop super teams from dominating the league and making entire fan bases lose interest.
 

I don't know where I read it but I am pretty sure it has been shown that having superteams face each other for a number of years in a row is actually good for the league because the television ratings seem to go through the roof when this happens. I might be wrong but I could have sworn I read an article about this once with some good stats to back it up.

it makes a ton of sense.

This era will probably be looked back at fondly when two giants just went at each other in an historic arms race.

To the casual fan, its great.

To a fairly hardcore fan (like most of us) of any of the other 28 teams, it really kinda sucks.

Thing is, we are still gonna watch. The casual fan is only watching to see Lebron do battle with the Golden State Globetrotters (in honor of LB)