OK, I can see that our discussion of long-term team finances is going to go on for a little while longer. And once again I think M. continues to misunderstand the financial situation and choices that the team will face if they keep this roster for the next two years. What is the probability of this? Arguably low, since to date Ainge has made about one big roster-altering trade per season. Unfortunately, the three big contracts that will shape the team’s future salary picture are either going to be highly unattractive to other teams (Wally, Raef) or clearly the player the team is building around (Pierce).
To summarize M’s post, there is no reason to worry about our long-term finances if you:
1) Assume Perkins, Pierce and the future Celtic free agents will accept below market value contracts to stay with the team;
2) Ignore the additional cost of four first round draft picks (each starting on ~$1.5M+ deals) and any free agents signed in the next three years;
3) Assume that Blount would have stayed with the team for the length of his contract, instead of being traded sometime this season for a deal that comes off the books before the team needs to resign their current young talent;
4) Think that Raef or Wally may have any trade value to other teams before the final months of their current contracts;
5) Think that the Celtics owners ‘could and would’ pay tens of millions of dollars of their own money to bridge a year of playing Raef, Wally, and all the kids big money despite all evidence that to date they have adamantly prevented Danny from making any deals (e.g. Baron Davis at the trade deadline last year) that could have created additional costs to the ownership group;
6) Like the idea of having more room under the luxury tax in 08/09, despite that being 1.5-2.5 years after when the Celtics will need to resign their current youth.
It’s not particularly fair to line these all up, say that I either disagree or think unlikely all of them, and then walk away. A certain someone is on me to help clean the house, however, so for the moment I will conclude with this thought:
If the Celtics are currently supposed to be building a team that can compete for a championship in something like 3-5 years, why why why would you tie up 40% of your future room under the luxury tax in two players (Raef, Wally) that should realistically be expected to be no more than role players on a championship team?
Imagine you’re starting with a blank slate. Which players do you build around to create that future team? Most people’s lists-- based on public statements the team’s list-- start with people like Pierce, Perkins and Jefferson. If that’s the case why take on Wally and Raef’s contracts? Maybe they get you 5-10 more wins in the short term. So what? Why not clear out Blount, Davis and Banks for expiring deals; keep your salary expenses low enough that you are guaranteed to sign whichever of your own players you want to keep; have room to go after other free agents that you like, and add talent in the short-term through higher draft picks and Danny’s astute talent evaluation? This is the general strategy that R.M. spelled out here, and while not every championship team has been built this way (see the Detroit Pistons) it makes a lot of sense for the current Celtics. Since M. is clearly willing to trade Pierce for picks and young talent, he can't be that adverse to going this route ourselves.
Why aren't the real Celtics going along with this fantasty? I suspect part of the answer is that the Celtics owners are running a business they just paid top dollar for, with lots of healthy interest payments due to their financers. They need the revenue that comes with a somewhat competitive team (e.g. $1M for each home playoff game). I suspect another part of the reason is that Danny doesn’t want to get trapped in a cycle and culture of losing, where lottery teams beget lottery teams, full of talented players that don’t reach their potential.
I understand both of these motivations, and respect them to a certain extent. I’m just not sure it’s how I’d run the team.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Re: More on Long Term Finances --
I never said I wasn't worried about the Celtics cap/luxury situation. And I thought I made it clear that there were going to be additional expenses like first round picks, free agents to round out the roster, etc. But my overall point was simple -- right now, all they've done is added $6m in payroll in one single year, in return for shortening the length of their financial committments to a player who they were desperate to get rid of and who wasn't going to be playing very much for the C's. They haven't made their cap/luxury situation dramatically worse for that one year (and only by $6m that year, by the way.) Thus, if the players progress the way we all hope they do will, the owners will face some simple choices. They will have to decide how much they can afford to resign players for -- including Pierce, Perkins, Jefferson, West, and for B's sake, Allen. And if they decide they want to sign everyone, and if the players have all completely maximized their potential, there will be a one year hit for this -- to the tune of $6m beyond where they would have been against the cap. If they do nothing in the intervening time. Which both B and I say they won't. But that's beside the point.
B -- let me ask a question. You've criticized me several times for not understanding the timing of all this, and for not understanding the C's cap/luxury situation. So let's talk about the first contract that's up. The C's will exercise the option on Kendrick Perkins' contract (if they haven't already) so he's effectively under contract for 18 more months. Which means they'll be negotiating a long term contract for him very soon, one that ideally will be in place at the end of this season or next season, correct? At the moment, he's averaging 4 pts and 5 boards a game. To put that in perspective -- Carlos Boozer averaged 15 points and 11 rebounds per game in the year where he signed his $11m per year contract. Mark Blount averaged 10 points and 7 boards in the year he signed his contract, which began at $5m and averages about $7m over the length of the deal. Unless Perkins improves radically in the next 18 months, he's much more likely to sign a Blount style deal than a Boozer style deal, even if he hits restricted free agency. Ditto for Jefferson and West who'll be hitting the same window in the 2007-2008 season. And I'll go on record right now, as I have before, and say that Paul Pierce will NOT be making your estimate of $18m per season, at least with the C's. That would put him in the top 5 players in the NBA. No way the C's resign him for that much, at least in his first year starting salary. In short, all of your salary estimates are very high, in my opinion. And again, if the ownership decides to do nothing except keep the nucleus together and resign everyone, the cap/luxury hit will be only $6m worse in one calendar year, and in return, they're free and clear the next year.
Lastly, while it's nice to ask why the C's couldn't move Blount and/or Davis for contracts that expire sooner, none of us really know what offers were or were not on the table. I'm sure they're not naive about their own cap/luxury situation, and are aware that there are decisions to be made in the immediate future about the team. Also, I think they do feel like this is a team that can compete in the East in a couple of years if the young players continue to progress. Thus, they're currently building around two veteran swingmen, and developing the young talent at the other positions.
More later... kids waking up from naps...
Post a Comment