Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Celtics post-lockout roster thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
676 replies to this topic

#151 Statman

  • 505 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:32 PM

Well, if the Celtics used the amnesty provision on Rasheed Wallace they would be below the luxury tax threshhold and would presumably have the full MLE available.


Did the Celtics ever reach a formal settlement with Rasheed regarding his retirement or did Rasheed simply file his retirement papers with the league? If it's the latter situation, then the retiring player forfeits any right to earn a salary from his former team and his salary should not count against the team's salary cap.

Here's what Larry Coon said about Rasheed's retirement:

Should Wallace decide to file retirement papers with the league, $6,322,320 would come off the Celtics' books next season.


So assuming that Rasheed filed retirement papers with the league before the start of last season, then his salary for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 season should not count against the Celtics' salary cap. However, I have not been able to find a link confirming whether he actually did or did not file his retirement papers.

Link

Edited by Statman, 30 November 2011 - 08:35 PM.


#152 Mike in CT



  • 2125 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:41 PM

I see no reason why the Celtics would have bought out Rasheed Wallace. They still wanted him, but he no longer wanted to work. That's not the formula for a buyout.

I believe he retired, and the Celtics should owe him nothing, but there are people who insist it was a buyout.

I still don't get it, if they really did buy him out.

#153 mikeford


  • mikerolston


  • 15866 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:42 PM

Not retaining Green after blowing up our team chemistry to get him would make Ainge look like a complete fool.

#154 dbn

  • 2583 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:03 PM

Landry=Udonis Haslem. Both useful players. But Landry is not a center. They need another center because JO will never make it through a full season with his knees.


I 100% agree with this statement. However, even if JO is relatively healthy, they need another center because he is currently the only one on the roster.

#155 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:26 PM

I 100% agree with this statement. However, even if JO is relatively healthy, they need another center because he is currently the only one on the roster.


I would rather roll with two D leaguers than Jermaine O'Neal. It's simple fantasy sports logic recently. Why take a huge injury risk over players who will actually contribute stats? Signing Jermaine in the real NBA is like when I drafted Vincent Jackson, Beanie Wells, Knowshon Moreno in my fantasy football league. You just know you're in for a bunch of misery.

#156 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:27 PM

Did the Celtics ever reach a formal settlement with Rasheed regarding his retirement or did Rasheed simply file his retirement papers with the league? If it's the latter situation, then the retiring player forfeits any right to earn a salary from his former team and his salary should not count against the team's salary cap.

Here's what Larry Coon said about Rasheed's retirement:



So assuming that Rasheed filed retirement papers with the league before the start of last season, then his salary for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 season should not count against the Celtics' salary cap. However, I have not been able to find a link confirming whether he actually did or did not file his retirement papers.

Link



According to Hoopshype, he's still on the Celtics' cap. Hoopshype has been known to be wrong in the past-- but they've also been known to be right. I'm sure Ainge knows.

#157 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:33 PM

I 100% agree with this statement. However, even if JO is relatively healthy, they need another center because he is currently the only one on the roster.


They don't need another center, they need another good center. They might just get by with Aaron Gray, but only if he's 100% healthy and plays as well as he's capable. Otherwise, they need someone better. That means Gasol, Chandler or Nene. Kwame Brown would not be acceptable in my opinion.

#158 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:36 PM

They don't need another center, they need another good center. They might just get by with Aaron Gray, but only if he's 100% healthy and plays as well as he's capable. Otherwise, they need someone better. That means Gasol, Chandler or Nene. Kwame Brown would not be acceptable in my opinion.


FYI Kwame Brown is better than Aaron Gray.

Gasol, Chandler, or Nene will not be playing for the Celtics this year.

Hope that helps.

#159 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:40 PM

Not retaining Green after blowing up our team chemistry to get him would make Ainge look like a complete fool.


I think Ainge is already aware of his mistake, given the rumors that he has tried to reacquire Perkins. When you are a gambler, sometimes the gambles don't pay off. If Ainge is a grownup--and I think he is-- he'll accept the consequences and move on. No use crying over spilt milk.

#160 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:41 PM

FYI Kwame Brown is better than Aaron Gray.

Gasol, Chandler, or Nene will not be playing for the Celtics this year.

Hope that helps.




Defensively, yes, offensively, no.

As for the others, who knows?

#161 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:45 PM

Defensively, yes, offensively, no.

As for the others, who knows?


Gray and Brown are both pretty much garbage players on offense who rate similarly.

And I know, we're not going to get any of those guys. Unless we want to offer Rondo in a S&T, there's just no means to get a deal done.

#162 mikeford


  • mikerolston


  • 15866 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:53 PM

Chuck Hayes is a guy the Celtics should look at. He's 6'6 but he plays center. And he's GOOD at it. He is the Anti-Glen Davis.

#163 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:59 PM

Chuck Hayes is a guy the Celtics should look at. He's 6'6 but he plays center. And he's GOOD at it. He is the Anti-Glen Davis.


I'm down with the Chuck Wagon. Don't really see any better options within in our price range.

#164 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:21 PM

Celtics signed roster as of Nov. 30 (via Hoopshype). Six players under contract ($65.7M).

5: Jermaine O'Neal ($6.2M, final year)
4: Kevin Garnett ($21.2M, final year)
3: Paul Pierce ($15.3M, contract ends 2014)
2: Ray Allen ($10M, final year), Avery Bradley ($1.5M, contract up 2013)
1: Rajon Rondo ($10M, conract through 2015?)

Qualifying offers: Jeff Green ($5.9M)

Unsigned draft picks Jajuan Johnson (1-27), E'twaun Moore (2-55).

So how much more can we spend? Do we care about these two lame-ass draft picks and are they still in America? What free agents shall/can we target?

Edited by dolomite133, 01 December 2011 - 02:44 AM.


#165 Mike in CT



  • 2125 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:32 PM

Our top pick was JaJuan Johnson, not Brooks.

We will need Johnson's size, imo. He was a 4 year senior so he should be pretty polished to go along with his talent.

#166 Riles335


  • Defiantly Definite


  • 506 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:19 AM

Tyson Chandler has made it public that he doesn't think he will be resigning with the Mavericks. With this being the case, I think its an obvious move for Danny to make in signing Chandler to the full MLE.

In signing Chandler you would solidify yourself this year regardless of what roster moves you made. Getting Chandler and keeping Rondo would give you one more shot title shot. Furthermore, if you acquire Chandler, acquiring Paul would become a stronger possibility it would seem. A Paul lead team, with the big three and Tyson Chandler would become an instant contender again.

If Chandler is fully available, I would not be shocked to see Ainge sign him because it makes sense for a team lead by both Rondo or Paul.

Edited by Riles335, 01 December 2011 - 12:22 AM.


#167 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 19085 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:30 AM

Tyson Chandler has made it public that he doesn't think he will be resigning with the Mavericks. With this being the case, I think its an obvious move for Danny to make in signing Chandler to the full MLE.

In signing Chandler you would solidify yourself this year regardless of what roster moves you made. Getting Chandler and keeping Rondo would give you one more shot title shot. Furthermore, if you acquire Chandler, acquiring Paul would become a stronger possibility it would seem. A Paul lead team, with the big three and Tyson Chandler would become an instant contender again.

If Chandler is fully available, I would not be shocked to see Ainge sign him because it makes sense for a team lead by both Rondo or Paul.

Chandler would be a great acquisition, if he fits into the Celtic salary picture, and Chris Paul clearly knows how to bring out the best in Chandler, but he's not exactly durable himself. How many nights in a 66 game season would both Jermaine and Chandler make it onto the floor? The Celtics badly need a durable and bulky interior player who can play every game inside and get the rebounds. Too bad DeJuan Blair isn't a Celtic.

#168 KevinRiley28

  • 287 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:45 AM

I can't picture Chandler settling for MLE

#169 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:33 AM

I can't picture Chandler settling for MLE


I can't either, but Nene might. Nene has said publicly that it's not about the money, he wants a shot at a title.

#170 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 9638 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:52 AM

I can't either, but Nene might. Nene has said publicly that it's not about the money, he wants a shot at a title.


Then he will go to Miami then since that is his best chance.

#171 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:58 AM

Then he will go to Miami then since that is his best chance.


That is certainly possible. Or Dallas.

#172 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 2746 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:05 AM

If I'm understanding the new CBA correctly, if the Celtics opt to use the full MLE it will put them over the luxury tax threshold, and would then be left with only $3 million dollars to sign/re-sign players. So putting aside the fact that the MLE isn't going to net Chandler, utilizing it would make it very difficult for them to fill out a roster and would leave them with serious depth issues.

#173 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:20 AM

Are you saying that there is, in effect, a hard cap at 74 million? I don't think so. Also, the severe luxury tax penalty provisions (and the rule that teams over the luxury tax threshold can't receive players in a sign and trade) don't kick in until next year.

BTW the C's also have a 2.7M trade exception from the Marquis Daniels deal. You cold get two 1.35M roster filling players with that. And what about the rule that you can sign your draft picks no matter how far over the cap you are? Has that been eliminated?

Edited by Brickowski, 01 December 2011 - 10:20 AM.


#174 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 2746 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:26 AM

Are you saying that there is, in effect, a hard cap at 74 million? I don't think so. Also, the severe luxury tax penalty provisions (and the rule that teams over the luxury tax threshold can't receive players in a sign and trade) don't kick in until next year.

BTW the C's also have a 2.7M trade exception from the Marquis Daniels deal. You cold get two 1.35M roster filling players with that. And what about the rule that you can sign your draft picks no matter how far over the cap you are? Has that been eliminated?


No, not saying there's a hard cap. The 74 million figure comes about because there's a barrier 4 million dollars above the luxury tax line that no team can cross by signing their own players via Bird rights. You can cross it to sign veteran minimum players and rookies, so if the Celtics use the full MLE, it means that there's only about 3 million dollars left to re-sign Davis and Green. If they do opt to use the full MLE, they'd have about 71 million in payroll committed to 8 players, and all other spots would have to be filled using the veteran minimum, which would be difficult, and lead to likely depth issues.

#175 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:41 AM

No, not saying there's a hard cap. The 74 million figure comes about because there's a barrier 4 million dollars above the luxury tax line that no team can cross by signing their own players via Bird rights. You can cross it to sign veteran minimum players and rookies, so if the Celtics use the full MLE, it means that there's only about 3 million dollars left to re-sign Davis and Green. If they do opt to use the full MLE, they'd have about 71 million in payroll committed to 8 players, and all other spots would have to be filled using the veteran minimum, which would be difficult, and lead to likely depth issues.



Plus the free agent or agents they could bring in with the 2.7 M trade exception plus their two draft picks, yes?
IMHO Davis isn't coming back. As for Green, are you saying that if the C's went over 69 million not counting Green, their 5.9M qualifying offer, which they extended under the prior agreement, would be nullified and Green would immediately become unrestricted? I don't think so. It might mean they they could not match an offer sheet, but IMHO that would be no great loss. I'd rather have a decent big man if I could get one with the MLE.

#176 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 2746 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:03 AM

Plus the free agent or agents they could bring in with the 2.7 M trade exception plus their two draft picks, yes?
IMHO Davis isn't coming back. As for Green, are you saying that if the C's went over 69 million not counting Green, their 5.9M qualifying offer, which they extended under the prior agreement, would be nullified and Green would immediately become unrestricted? I don't think so. It might mean they they could not match an offer sheet, but IMHO that would be no great loss. I'd rather have a decent big man if I could get one with the MLE.


You're correct. Green wouldn't become an unrestricted free agent, but they couldn't match an offer sheet for him if they use the full MLE. So if they used the full MLE to bring in a decent big man, they'd have 71 million going to 8 roster spots. They could sign the two Purdue rookies, and bring in players with veteran minimum contracts in free agency, and attempt to use the Daniels trade exception as well. Bear in mind though, in that scenario, the roster would look like this:

C: Center X at MLE, Jermaine O'Neal
PF: Garnett, JuJuan Johnson
SF: Pierce
SG: Ray Allen, Avery Bradley, E'Twuan Moore
PG: Rondo

That means no backup PG or wing to spell Rondo and Pierce, unless you're confident in Avery Bradley/E'Twuan Moore. Looking through the list of free agents, I'm not sure who the vet minimum wing or back-up PG's are who you target. Tracy McGrady could potentially be had at the minimum, and could actually be effective in both of those roles. You could definitely end up with Marquis Daniels again, if his body works, or Jared Jeffries. Maybe Josh Howard if you're lucky. But guys like Tayshaun Prince, Shane Battier, and Caron Butler are going to require more than the minimum, most likely. Which is all to say, it's certainly not impossible to construct a roster after using the full MLE, but it's definitely a challenge.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 01 December 2011 - 11:04 AM.


#177 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:13 AM

Wouldn't they also have the lesser, 3M MLE as well?

C: Center X at MLE, Jermaine O'Neal
PF: Garnett, JuJuan Johnson, possibly Jeff Green if no offer sheet is presented
SF: Pierce, SF "X" at 3M (Grant Hill or Anthony Parker on a one year deal?)
SG: Ray Allen, Avery Bradley, E'Twuan Moore
PG: Rondo, PG "X" at 2.7M (Delonte West?)


That's 11 players, not including guys they could sign for the veterans minimum, like Arroyo or maybe even Fesenko.I'd go to war with that.

Edited by Brickowski, 01 December 2011 - 11:18 AM.


#178 Jeff Van GULLY

  • 2524 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:26 AM

Wouldn't they also have the lesser, 3M MLE as well?

C: Center X at MLE, Jermaine O'Neal
PF: Garnett, JuJuan Johnson, possibly Jeff Green if no offer sheet is presented
SF: Pierce, SF "X" at 3M (Grant Hill or Anthony Parker on a one year deal?)
SG: Ray Allen, Avery Bradley, E'Twuan Moore
PG: Rondo, PG "X" at 2.7M (Delonte West?)


That's 11 players, not including guys they could sign for the veterans minimum, like Arroyo or maybe even Fesenko.I'd go to war with that.



There is only one MLE. If you are below the tax threshold you get the bigger MLE (5 million). If you are over the tax threshold you get the smaller MLE (3 million). Taxpaying teams also lose the bi-annual exception.

Edited by Jeff Van GULLY, 01 December 2011 - 11:26 AM.


#179 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:31 AM

There is only one MLE. If you are below the tax threshold you get the bigger MLE (5 million). If you are over the tax threshold you get the smaller MLE (3 million). Taxpaying teams also lose the bi-annual exception.


OK, thanks for the clarification. It makes sense that there is only one MLE. Does the loss of the biannual exception kick in immediately or not until some future year?

#180 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:47 PM

You're correct. Green wouldn't become an unrestricted free agent, but they couldn't match an offer sheet for him if they use the full MLE. So if they used the full MLE to bring in a decent big man, they'd have 71 million going to 8 roster spots. They could sign the two Purdue rookies, and bring in players with veteran minimum contracts in free agency, and attempt to use the Daniels trade exception as well. Bear in mind though, in that scenario, the roster would look like this:

C: Center X at MLE, Jermaine O'Neal
PF: Garnett, JuJuan Johnson
SF: Pierce
SG: Ray Allen, Avery Bradley, E'Twuan Moore
PG: Rondo

That means no backup PG or wing to spell Rondo and Pierce, unless you're confident in Avery Bradley/E'Twuan Moore. Looking through the list of free agents, I'm not sure who the vet minimum wing or back-up PG's are who you target. Tracy McGrady could potentially be had at the minimum, and could actually be effective in both of those roles. You could definitely end up with Marquis Daniels again, if his body works, or Jared Jeffries. Maybe Josh Howard if you're lucky. But guys like Tayshaun Prince, Shane Battier, and Caron Butler are going to require more than the minimum, most likely. Which is all to say, it's certainly not impossible to construct a roster after using the full MLE, but it's definitely a challenge.


That roster is depressing. Time for Trader Danny to do his thing. No sense waiting another year unless we're confident we can land a major, major free agent. If the squad looks anything like what's listed above we're out in the first round (unless someone discovers the fountain of youth or we land the next Ben Wallace/out of the blue all star).

#181 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:44 PM

They can still add a 3M player and a 2.7M player, even if they don't use the larger MLE. Plus they will more likely than not retain Jeff Green (for whatever that is worth). I'll be surprised if he gets an offer sheet.

#182 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27039 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:48 PM

That roster is depressing. Time for Trader Danny to do his thing.


The obvious problem with sentence #2 is sentence #1. What are his tradeable assets?

#183 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:14 PM

The obvious problem with sentence #2 is sentence #1. What are his tradeable assets?


Rondo. Ray Allen (expiring). Two first round picks in 2012, one of which is likely to be late lotto. He has assets.

#184 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27039 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:36 PM

Rondo. Ray Allen (expiring). Two first round picks in 2012, one of which is likely to be late lotto. He has assets.


Yeah, those are also guys the team needs to be competitive though. The value of an expiring deal is largely overblown, back to the days when everyone was so excited about the C's having Chris Mills expiring deal. I guess I'm a skeptic but I find it hard to envision how a team turns two really good players and later round draft picks into something that really helps the team. It's like the Ray Allen- Kevin Martin rumors from years ago, just running in place for the most part.

#185 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:48 PM

We won't be competitive -- this year or moving forward -- if we stand pat. This team is over the hill and due for a change. So, like Brickowski said, we have some assets. Question is, what trade targets are out there, and what would be an acceptable return?

#186 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27039 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:55 PM

We won't be competitive -- this year or moving forward -- if we stand pat. This team is over the hill and due for a change.


Define competitive. Likely to win a title? Probably not. But they have a chance. Tearing it apart means they have no chance this year, and would be a pretty indefensible move from a business perspective.

#187 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:04 PM

IMHO it will be clear by the trading deadline how far this team can go as presently constituted. Ainge can afford to wait until then unless a really good offer comes along.

#188 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17527 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:09 PM

Nope-- I'm not into the hip hop scene.

I go to Miami quite frequently, but the women there are no prettier than Boston's. Maybe the women in LA are prettier-- haven't been there since 2001. But I bet they aren't, per capita.


Are you on drugs?

#189 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:29 PM

Are you on drugs?


Yes, but not mind altering ones.

#190 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:33 PM

Define competitive. Likely to win a title? Probably not. But they have a chance. Tearing it apart means they have no chance this year, and would be a pretty indefensible move from a business perspective.


So we probably won't win this year and have to rebuild next offseason regardless. And you're saying we should wait because it's good business? Wouldn't ensuring the franchise remain competitive and contend into the future be better business? What you're suggesting sounds like 'play it safe, think corporate, and make some money.' Red would not approve.

#191 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 07:02 PM

If you added a few pieces, the current roster could win a championship. They're not the favorites by any means, but they would be in the hunt. Garnett, Allen and Pierce can still play. Maybe they aren't superstars every night, but on some nights they are. They just need more rest, so Ainge has to put together an effective bench. There will be some cheap veterans floating around without a chair when the music stops, so you never know.

#192 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 07:17 PM

If you added a few pieces, the current roster could win a championship. They're not the favorites by any means, but they would be in the hunt. Garnett, Allen and Pierce can still play. Maybe they aren't superstars every night, but on some nights they are. They just need more rest, so Ainge has to put together an effective bench. There will be some cheap veterans floating around without a chair when the music stops, so you never know.


Given the compressed schedule filled with back-to-backs and back-to-back-to-backs, combined with our players' ages and/or injury histories, I don't see it happening. We'll need to greatly reduce regular season minutes for KG, Pierce and Allen for long stretches and accept an eight seed to make it work. Unfortunately our bench is going to be absolute shit and I don't see them picking up the slack.

#193 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 07:39 PM

I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the possible composition of the bench as you. Let's make a few not-so-far-fetched assumptions (assuming no one is traded).
1. Green accepts his QO.
2. They bring back Delonte West
3.JaJuan Johnson puts on 15 pounds and turns out to be a useful player

Add one more competent big person, and you have a decent 9-man rotation. It's also going to be fascinating to see which amnestied players will clear waivers in the new "blind bidding" process. Would you be unhappy with Rip Hamilton coming off the bench? Gilbert Arenas? For those of you who pine for James Posey, you can probably get him for the veterans' minimum.

It will be a fascinating offseason.

Edited by Brickowski, 01 December 2011 - 07:40 PM.


#194 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:34 PM

I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the possible composition of the bench as you. Let's make a few not-so-far-fetched assumptions (assuming no one is traded).
1. Green accepts his QO.
2. They bring back Delonte West
3.JaJuan Johnson puts on 15 pounds and turns out to be a useful player

Add one more competent big person, and you have a decent 9-man rotation. It's also going to be fascinating to see which amnestied players will clear waivers in the new "blind bidding" process. Would you be unhappy with Rip Hamilton coming off the bench? Gilbert Arenas? For those of you who pine for James Posey, you can probably get him for the veterans' minimum.

It will be a fascinating offseason.


JaJuan Johnson is for all intents and purposes a 2nd round pick. He should be able to step in give us rotation minutes in a pinch when injuries start piling up, but any plan that entails him being a regular should come with great pessimism toward the bench.

Optimally steps 1 and 2 happen, and we sign somebody like Chuck Hayes for the MLE. Then maybe we can get a decent 9th man in a BBD S&T? Attract Grant Hill for the vet's min? It's going to be rough, especially considering that Chuck Hayes becomes a starter when KG or JO can't play, which should be an ample # of games. And we can't really be sure that Jeff Green isn't going to suck again.

Washed up guys who have nothing to offer anymore are not the answer.

#195 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:35 PM

So we probably won't win this year and have to rebuild next offseason regardless. And you're saying we should wait because it's good business? Wouldn't ensuring the franchise remain competitive and contend into the future be better business? What you're suggesting sounds like 'play it safe, think corporate, and make some money.' Red would not approve.


1) Didn't Ainge promise Ray that he wouldn't trade him if he re-signed?
2) Didn't Red stay loyal to his vets and keep them forever to a fault?

#196 mcpickl

  • 1994 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:43 PM

I think Ainge is already aware of his mistake, given the rumors that he has tried to reacquire Perkins. When you are a gambler, sometimes the gambles don't pay off. If Ainge is a grownup--and I think he is-- he'll accept the consequences and move on. No use crying over spilt milk.


that rumor has been debunked as garbage. There has been no time that the rumored trade offer was legal under NBA rules.

#197 mcpickl

  • 1994 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:55 PM

Tyson Chandler has made it public that he doesn't think he will be resigning with the Mavericks. With this being the case, I think its an obvious move for Danny to make in signing Chandler to the full MLE.

In signing Chandler you would solidify yourself this year regardless of what roster moves you made. Getting Chandler and keeping Rondo would give you one more shot title shot. Furthermore, if you acquire Chandler, acquiring Paul would become a stronger possibility it would seem. A Paul lead team, with the big three and Tyson Chandler would become an instant contender again.

If Chandler is fully available, I would not be shocked to see Ainge sign him because it makes sense for a team lead by both Rondo or Paul.


Geez, just picking this one post but lots of people are saying crazy things. c'mon guys, Chandler will be getting 8+ million a year. As will Gasol. And Nene. Even Odens qualifying offer was 8+ million, so he's getting it too. The max the Celtics can offer a free agent is 3 million a year, unless they renounce Jeff Green and Glen Davis. Then it'd be 5 million.

Many of you are aiming way too high. The Celtics had to give Jermaine O'Neal 5 million per to come here last year. So the guys you should be looking at would have less value than JO did at this time last year.

Edited by mcpickl, 01 December 2011 - 08:59 PM.


#198 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:09 PM

Geez, just picking this one post but lots of people are saying crazy things. c'mon guys, Chandler will be getting 8+ million a year. As will Gasol. And Nene. Even Odens qualifying offer was 8+ million, so he's getting it too. The max the Celtics can offer a free agent is 3 million a year, unless they renounce Jeff Green and Glen Davis. Then it'd be 5 million.

Many of you are aiming way too high. The Celtics had to give Jermaine O'Neal 5 million per to come here last year. So the guys you should be looking at would have less value than JO did at this time last year.


Yeah, there's a fair case to be made that both Nene and Chandler are worth paying a max salary. FFS we're living in a world where Brendan Haywood signed a 6/55 contract last summer. I don't know if either will get the max, but they're going to get offered a lot closer to than f'n $3M/year.

We'll be fortunate if Chuck Hayes is in our price range, we're never going to get Nene or Chandler.

#199 Statman

  • 505 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:23 PM

We'll be fortunate if Chuck Hayes is in our price range, we're never going to get Nene or Chandler.


Absolutely. There is simply no way that someone like Nene, Gasol or Chandler would even consider joining the Celtics for a mere $3 million per year. All three players are in their primes and can easily score a $8-10 million per year contract easily from the many teams that are significantly under the cap and are in of big men.

In addition, keep in mind that the new CBA increases the minimum salary floor to 85% of the salary cap. Assuming that the cap for this upcoming season is $58 million, then teams need to carry a minimum of $49 million in salaries. This is going to force teams like Denver ($34 million of cap space) and Memphis ($20 million of cap space) to re-sign Nene and Gasol respectively just to meet the salary floor.

We will be lucky this year to sign someone like Mikki Moore with our mid-level exception.

#200 Brickowski

  • 2981 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:25 PM

JaJuan Johnson is for all intents and purposes a 2nd round pick.


No, Johnson was a late first round pick. So were Kendrick Perkins, Josh Howard and Tony Parker (just to name 3). Glenn Davis was a 2nd round pick.

Johnson is a 4-year player who did well in a pretty good conference. Let's wait and see how he does in the NBA

As for Nene, I hope he gets 8 million a year, because that means he won't be playing for the Heat.

Edited by Brickowski, 01 December 2011 - 09:26 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users