Author Topic: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win  (Read 5063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #30 on: July 19, 2017, 04:42:18 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right? ::)

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

Look at what Posey got and how that contract worked out.   It wasn't a matter of being cheap.  It was a matter of not overpaying a 32 year old role player with a long term deal.

Which was the right decision in the long run.

Not resigning Posey isn't what did the '08-09 Celtics in.  It was the KG injury.  Simple as that.

I think that it was one of the factors in why we failed to repeat.  Sure, the Garnett injury and subsequent mishandling by our medical staff meant that we weren't going to win the title that year, but even before that transpired, Pierce and that other guy were playing too many minutes and our depth just wasn't anywhere near the level it had been during the previous season which was evident from the outset, imo.

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right? ::)

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?



There's about 5-10 of you who aren't happy unless the Celtics are losing. Why are you even here?

In what universe is what I described moving the goalposts?

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2017, 04:44:41 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team.

You keep spouting this except you're wrong.

This is Danny from May 2017:
Quote
“Just because you’re one piece away doesn’t mean you can get it,” Ainge told the Boston Herald’s Steve Bulpett. “And if you force yourself to get it, and if you force a deal or force yourself to get the second best available or the third or fourth best available player at that position that you need, then it might not make you that much better or make you still not good enough, and you’re stuck. So, yeah, we’re not that far away, but we’re still a ways away. We still know we need to get better. Everybody in our organization knows we need to get better. We need to add.” Ainge acknowledged “that next step is by far the hardest,” and that he knows the team is good but not great.

Now that one piece doesn't guarantee a Championship but they are a contender. But it goes to show how cloudy your opinion is when you think a 31 team win is on par with the Celtics.

Furthermore, they specifically told Hayward they WERE willing to go into the tax. For cryin' out loud, here's a link from today about it! http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19975645/nba-brad-stevens-re-recruitment-gordon-hayward-boston-celtics

So is it your assertion that ownership, Brad and Danny flat out lied to Gordon Hayward regarding this issue? Yes or no?
No.  I fully believe the Celtics will pay "the luxury tax to field a championship-caliber team".  I just don't believe this is a championship-caliber team.


here is Wyc from February 24th explaining why Boston didn't make any moves at the deadline.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/grousbeck-cs-two-stars-away-so-giving-everything-one-didnt-make-sense

“We figure we’re probably two guys away from being a really, really good team; probably two significant guys away, and if we put all the chips in yesterday on one guy, we’re getting rid of draft pick -- or picks -- and we’re getting rid of free agency this summer, so it’s sort of like one step forward, two steps back. It just didn’t make sense.”

Unless you think Tatum, Morris, or Baynes is a significant guy next season, then Boston is still 1 significant piece away, unless of course you think Wyc was being disingenuous and lying about the team being 2 significant guys away.

No, but Wyc's comment was made at the trade deadline. Danny's comment which was from late May reflects the current situation - the playoffs, best record in the East and winning the lottery (and getting the guy he wanted most). A lot happened between those two comments. Maybe you should update your information and assumptions.

It also doesn't matter if you think the Cs are a Championship team. You wouldn't think they were Championship-caliber until they were holding the trophy...and perhaps not even then. It matters what management thinks. It's also a GIVEN that they'll go into the tax next year when they sign IT. Or are you now assuming that they won't resign IT and - again - lied to Hayward?  :o :o :o
Come on February 24th, Boston was firmly entrenched as the 2 seed and was looking pretty clearly as the 2nd best team in the East.  It should have been in the ECF in that scenario. 

And for the record, you left off Ainge's concluding quote to Bulprett “We have a lot of good players,” he added, “but we need some great ones.”

Strange that Ainge used the plural on great ones if the team was only 1 great player away, why wouldn't he just say that.  Maybe just maybe because the team was more than just 1 great player away.  Nah that couldn't be it.

C's management knows this isn't a championship-caliber team.  That is why they were pushing hard for acquiring both Hayward and George.  That would have made Boston a championship-caliber team. 

I don't think Boston gives Thomas a max contract.  I don't think they believe he is worth that sort of contract, especially on a team that isn't a championship-caliber team.  I'm sure they would gladly bring him back at a reasonable price, and might just go into the tax to do it, but they aren't going to give out a 3rd max contract when they don't have a single transcendent player on the team.  I mean in 2008 every single one of the big 3 was a better and more complete player than the 3 max level players on the current team (the 08 guys were obviously older and were much closer to be out of their prime though).

So you just admitted the Cs are willing to go into the tax for the current squad. We're making progress!

I think Danny knows that the current team is going to have a difficult time beating GSW. I think we can hold our own against anyone else but I realize that your opinion differs. If he HAD to win now, then he needs to play the short term game and would have to acquire someone else to be the odds-on favorite (or at least a 50/50 against GSW). But there's a difference here. Danny knew that in '08 the window was open for a very short time. He's building a much longer one now.

I think he believes he has his "players" now in Hayward and Tatum. Now it's just a matter of getting Tatum enough experience to become that 4th guy (and Brown may still beat him to it) to try to replicate the Big 4 era of KG, Pierce, Rondo and Allen. If a deal comes along that allows him to pick up another star where they'd be the odds-on favorite to win it all (Unibrow) then he'd do it. But I think Danny's kind of happy where he is because they realize that this team still is on the upswing as the blue-chip youth matures.

FYI, I hope IT doesn't get a max contract - or if we do it's only for 3 years. I don't think his game will age all that well.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2017, 04:52:26 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right? ::)

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

Because they determined Posey wasn't worth a 4-year, $28 million deal, regardless of the luxury tax.  He dropped off a cliff after year 1 of that new deal, so essentially they'd have paid him $28 million for one year of production similar to what he'd given them before.

It's funny to see you argue that they should have massively overpaid a player instead of signing an undrafted free agent.

1). In no way was that a massive overpay, imo.

2). Even if he did drop off after that season, another good year out of him could have yielded another title, you never know.

3). Really? ::) He was our glue guy, our Michael Cooper, and, with the possible exception of Peaches ;D, Posey's contributions proved to be impossible to replace, and besides, there weren't any undrafted free agents that year who could have assumed the mantle as our 6th man, imo. 

Now, if you want to talk about Wesley Matthews, who we should have taken at 58 in 2009, that's another story.  I'd also argue that we would have been better off resigning Posey and drafting Chalmers to give us the backup point guard that we always lacked, while also providing great defense and clutch performances, not to mention the ability to save money by letting Eddie House walk.  Maybe do a sign and trade with him and Scal for somebody, idk.

1) If you don't consider that a massive overpay, I don't know what to tell you.

2) As others have pointed out, our lack of success the following season was due to KG's injury.

3)  I'll also point out that the Celtics traded to draft second-round stud Bill Walker, and had a desire to increase Tony Allen's role (except he missed nearly 40 games himself).  I'm being light-hearted about Walker, but TA was obviously a player who had the ability to step into a larger role.  KG was the glue guy -- he was a superstar glue guy.  Posey was just a guy.

Posey left because he got a huge, ill-advised offer, and the Celtics wisely passed.  If KG was healthy, and we lost to the Lakers in the finals, then you could mourn Posey.  But he wasn't getting us past Orlando on his own, much less LA and a title.

Sometimes you make me scratch my head.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2017, 06:01:04 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
1) If you don't consider that a massive overpay, I don't know what to tell you.

2) As others have pointed out, our lack of success the following season was due to KG's injury.

3)  I'll also point out that the Celtics traded to draft second-round stud Bill Walker, and had a desire to increase Tony Allen's role (except he missed nearly 40 games himself).  I'm being light-hearted about Walker, but TA was obviously a player who had the ability to step into a larger role.  KG was the glue guy -- he was a superstar glue guy.  Posey was just a guy.

Posey left because he got a huge, ill-advised offer, and the Celtics wisely passed.  If KG was healthy, and we lost to the Lakers in the finals, then you could mourn Posey.  But he wasn't getting us past Orlando on his own, much less LA and a title.

Sometimes you make me scratch my head.

1). Fine, then I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

2). I never said that Posey's loss was THE reason why we failed to repeat, only one of the contributing factors.

3). Giving Posey's role to Tony Allen was monumentally stupid, imo.  Sure, he could defend, but was a complete bonehead who couldn't dribble, never mind shoot, which is something that Posey provided in spades and especially in the clutch, and because of his size he could really only guard some shooting guards and players who couldn't post up.  I know that Kobe said that Tony was the best defender that he ever faced, but at the end of the day, because of the difference in height, just like he did to that other guy, Bryant just exploited his size and skill differential in the post and there was nothing that any of our guards to do about it, whereas Posey, thanks to being 6'8" with long arms, not only took Kobe's post game away, which was yuge in that series, but also gave him the ability to match up extremely well with Odom, Rashard Lewis, Antawn Jamison, and even Dirk. 

Once he left we never had another guy with such positional versatility on defense, and even if he couldn't guard guys like Lebron and Kobe as effectively or for as many minutes, he still had the ability to successfully defend the aforementioned combo forwards, which would have been a big help during the 2010 postseason, imo.  Odom, in particular, might never have produced as he did against us in 2010 in terms of points had Posey still been on the team, but we'll never know that, now :-\.

3). Garnett was the undisputed leader of that team, yes, but he was not a glue guy, imo, or at least not in the sense of Leon Powe and Posey, imo, and the team lost a lot in terms of defense, hustle, grit, the ability to get to the line (Leon), and, in particular, rebounding with their respective departures, even though I know that Powe's was mostly injury-related, but still.  Their contributions, both on and off of the court, were sorely missed, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you ;).

I also never implied nor stated that Posey would have gotten us past the Magic, let alone the Cavs, on his own, although he would have been a tremendous help against Lewis and Turkoglu, imo.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2017, 07:24:17 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I actually have to explain it to you?

Go back and read what you wrote, slowly. Maybe then it will dawn on you that your response to the Cs spending over the tax was a sarcastic "Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right? ::)". Then when it's pointed out that the Cs did spend those years, you immediately took a turn to "So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?"

Which not only consists of moving the goalposts but also shows that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. If you think we didn't win the Championship because we didn't resign Posey, you're more clueless than I thought. You know, because KG and Perk's injuries are just a wee bit more important than an over-the-hill James Posey in winning a Championship.

I swear some days you couldn't find your own butt with two hands and a search warrant.

::). Sigh. That's not moving the goalposts, that's stating what happened insofar as Posey's contract situation was concerned, but perhaps what I should have said is that the team attempted to do it on the cheap with our 6th man, instead.

However, I think you're forgetting a couple of things.  First, despite bringing him in for a workout and having clear interest in the guy, iirc, Ainge elected to pass on the Birdman in favor of Patrick O'Bryant, who signed a two year $3.12 million deal :o to be our backup center but was moved later that season to the Raptors for a 2014 second round pick that never conveyed, whereas Denver signed Andersen for $998,398, so I ask you, which would have been the better decision - to give Posey that fourth year or waste $3 million on O'Bryant?  At least if you sign Andersen we would have had a functional reserve center, but by opting for P.O.B. and not giving Posey that fourth year, we wound up with neither.

Second, if the team was really interested in making the best business decision, why did they waive Gabe Pruitt only after his deal was guaranteed, iirc?  That's another $711,517 down the tubes for 08-09, not to mention that after Posey left, Ainge elected to give Eddie House a two year deal, with the second being a player option that House would exercise following the conclusion of 08-09, and sign Tony Allen, who had really shown next to nothing from the time when he hurt his knee to the end of 07-08, to another two year contract for $5 million.  I'd also be remiss if I failed to mention the whole J.R. Giddens fiasco, which cost the team $957,120 per the first year of his rookie contract.

In fairness, I was good with resigning House, but idk why Ainge ever thought that Tony Allen and Giddens could possibly fill Posey's shoes, never mind believing that O'Bryant, with absolutely no motor of which to speak, could even replace Scott Pollard, lol, let alone P.J. Brown, plus Giddens' and Pruitt's cash.  You can say that not giving Posey that fourth year was the best decision in a vacuum, except that filling out/retaining key members of our bench doesn't work that way, as once Orlando got Peaches, there was no one else left who could have even come close to replicating what Posey gave us during 07-08, and even Pietrus didn't have Posey's positional versatility, defensively.

So to recap, instead of bringing the gang back together for the following season plus and giving Posey another $7 million - oh the horror!! ::) - management tried to be cute and wound up doling out, between Pruitt, Giddens, Allen, and O'Bryant, a combined $9,788,637 for three guys who never saw floor and the bonehead who couldn't shoot or dribble, to say the least, leaving our bench for 08-09 to consist of House, TA, Big Baby, and Powe, as opposed to House, Posey, Birdman (which is a great eight man rotation on its own), Powe, and Davis.  Which is the better, and more well-rounded, group in your eyes?

Finally, if management was so concerned about the luxury tax, why not seek to unload Scal's deal to the Knicks, for example, who were amassing expiring contracts to come off the books for the summer of 2010.  That's another, roughly, $6.6 million dollars in salary.  I'm sure that there was some kind of combination to which both teams could have agreed, but who knows?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not waste close to $10 million on three guys who never played and Tony Allen, but especially when the alternative is retaining our 6th man, and if we wanted another guard, Jannero Pargo was available, and, like the Birdman, likely could have been had for one of the veteran minimums, imo.

Oh yeah, and one more thing, I never said that not having Posey was the difference between winning another title and not, but it was a contributing factor, imo, so thanks for listening. ::) It would have been much better to split $9 million between Andersen, Pargo, and Posey, for 08-09, in my view.  If you're going to go into the luxury tax, at least spend it on the right players, lol.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 12:01:53 AM by Beat LA »

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2017, 07:53:44 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58563
  • Tommy Points: -25634
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
If I'm remembering correctly, we only had Posey's non-Bird rights. Same thing with Eddie House. I believe Danny chose to use the MLE to bring back House, sign Bill Walker, and maybe make some other moves.

In other words, it wasn't strictly financial.  Of course, that was like nine years ago, so I might be misremembering.

It was a disappointing off-season (I still disagree strongly with the POB signing), but it wasn't necessarily due to cheapness.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2017, 07:56:15 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
I love spending OPM too.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2017, 12:12:31 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
If I'm remembering correctly, we only had Posey's non-Bird rights. Same thing with Eddie House. I believe Danny chose to use the MLE to bring back House, sign Bill Walker, and maybe make some other moves.

In other words, it wasn't strictly financial.  Of course, that was like nine years ago, so I might be misremembering.

It was a disappointing off-season (I still disagree strongly with the POB signing), but it wasn't necessarily due to cheapness.

TP for remembering all of that :).

Quote
Celtics agree to deals with House, Tony Allen

By Marc J. Spears  July 21, 2008

The Celtics lost James Posey to the open market, but today they were able to retain a couple of other free-agent reserves from their championship season.

The Celtics agreed to terms with guards Eddie House and Tony Allen to return, general manager Danny Ainge announced today. Both will get two-year contracts (though House’s second year is a player option, according to an NBA source). House’s deal was made using a portion of the team’s $5.5 million mid-level exception. According to the source, House will make $2.7 million next season and $2.9 million the year after if he excercises his option.

House, who will enter his second season with the team, averaged 7.5 points and 19 minutes per game during the regular season, but those averages dropped to 2.5 points and just under 8 minutes in the postseason.

Allen agreed to a two-year guaranteed deal paying $2.5 million each year, according to a league source. Since the Celtics had Allen’s Bird Rights, they didn’t have to use the mid-level exception to re-sign him. Allen, who will enter his fifth season in green, averaged 6.6 points and just over 18 minutes per game during the regular season and 1.3 points in about 4 minutes per game in the playoffs.

***

Agent Mark Bartelstein, who also represents House, said the Celtics are interested in another of his free-agent clients: forward Devean George, who averaged 3.7 points per game for the Mavericks last season. The 31-year-old George played on three Lakers title teams

https://www.boston.com/sports/celtics-blog/2008/07/21/celtics_agree_t

Lol at Devean George, btw.  Ugh.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2017, 05:40:27 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5572
  • Tommy Points: 699
If I'm remembering correctly, we only had Posey's non-Bird rights. Same thing with Eddie House. I believe Danny chose to use the MLE to bring back House, sign Bill Walker, and maybe make some other moves.

In other words, it wasn't strictly financial.  Of course, that was like nine years ago, so I might be misremembering.

It was a disappointing off-season (I still disagree strongly with the POB signing), but it wasn't necessarily due to cheapness.

It had more to do with the length of the contract. Danny wanted flexibility towards the 3rd year of the contract, he was willing to pay huge amount as long as the contracts were short.

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2017, 06:16:01 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58563
  • Tommy Points: -25634
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
If I'm remembering correctly, we only had Posey's non-Bird rights. Same thing with Eddie House. I believe Danny chose to use the MLE to bring back House, sign Bill Walker, and maybe make some other moves.

In other words, it wasn't strictly financial.  Of course, that was like nine years ago, so I might be misremembering.

It was a disappointing off-season (I still disagree strongly with the POB signing), but it wasn't necessarily due to cheapness.

It had more to do with the length of the contract. Danny wanted flexibility towards the 3rd year of the contract, he was willing to pay huge amount as long as the contracts were short.

The "huge amount" was the $5.5 million MLE, though. The years were indeed a sticking but, but if we'd had Posey's Bird rights we could have structured a deal that had more appeal.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2017, 07:52:59 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
over or over enough to win. I will believe it when the time comes. It also looks like GSW can get better mini contract players too at the moment. .
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2017, 10:32:33 PM »

Offline Bobshot

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2050
  • Tommy Points: 141
The Celtics are the 4th richest team in the NBA, after the Knicks, Lakers and Bulls, according to Forbes.

They have plenty of money. :laugh:

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2017, 11:44:25 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right? ::)

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

I don't think not using it on Posey was a big mistake, but not using the MLE on anyone that offseason was a huge one. If we brought in a big, maybe KG isn't lost for the season. And maybe we don't have to rely on 'Sheed so much the next season.

I think bringing in a good player for the defense of our title would have really helped. I know we started 27-2, but we relied too heavily on the Big Three and Rondo when we had the full MLE to use.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2017, 12:56:30 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5572
  • Tommy Points: 699
If I'm remembering correctly, we only had Posey's non-Bird rights. Same thing with Eddie House. I believe Danny chose to use the MLE to bring back House, sign Bill Walker, and maybe make some other moves.

In other words, it wasn't strictly financial.  Of course, that was like nine years ago, so I might be misremembering.

It was a disappointing off-season (I still disagree strongly with the POB signing), but it wasn't necessarily due to cheapness.

It had more to do with the length of the contract. Danny wanted flexibility towards the 3rd year of the contract, he was willing to pay huge amount as long as the contracts were short.

The "huge amount" was the $5.5 million MLE, though. The years were indeed a sticking but, but if we'd had Posey's Bird rights we could have structured a deal that had more appeal.

Yeah I meant that. It was clear through Danny's next moves that he's gonna offer the most he can offer, as long as the contract isn't long. I think if Danny knew there was going to be an amnesty clause he wouldve done the deal.