Lee traded

k_j_88 wrote:A salary dump.

It was a good move, but I don't think I'm going to label it a genius move on Ainge's part. He was just lucky enough to find someone to take on that contract that HE created.


KJ

mrkleen09 wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:A salary dump.

It was a good move, but I don't think I'm going to label it a genius move on Ainge's part. He was just lucky enough to find someone to take on that contract that HE created.


KJ

The salary the HE agreed to pay for Lee is not at all out of line for the talent the Lee brings on both ends of the court.  Here are some players in the same salary range - you tell me how many are better than Lee

Antonio McDyess, PF San Antonio Spurs $5,220,000
Speedy Claxton, PG Atlanta Hawks $5,209,454
Zaza Pachulia, C Milwaukee Bucks $5,200,000
Martell Webster, SF Washington Wizards $5,150,000
Brad Miller, C null Unknown $5,104,000
Keith Bogans, SG Boston Celtics $5,058,198
Derrick Williams, PF Sacramento Kings $5,016,960
Ramon Sessions, PG Charlotte Bobcats $5,000,000
Corey Brewer, SF Minnesota Timberwolves $5,000,000
Andre Miller, PG Denver Nuggets $5,000,000
Richard Hamilton, SG null Unknown $5,000,000
Marcus Banks, PG New Orleans Pelicans $4,847,586
Darius Songaila, PF Philadelphia 76ers $4,818,000

When DA signed Lee (2 summers ago) he was a perfect fit.  No one knew that Lee would have an off season last year, that KG and Pierce would fall off so quickly, that Rondo would get hurt and be out.  Easy to play Monday Morning quarterback now.

mrkleen09 wrote:So if you think DA signed Lee to a good contract and was paying him what he was worth - what is "lucky" about being able to move him to a contender looking for a defensive stopper?

Thats like saying you have a car worth 10K, yet you are lucky to sell it for 10K - huh?    

k_j_88 wrote: if Ainge didn't want to be on the hook for that long, why write the contract in the first place? He should have just done a smaller deal in the first place instead, again, same with Terry's contract. That's bad GMing.

mrkleen09 wrote:

k_j_88 wrote: if Ainge didn't want to be on the hook for that long, why write the contract in the first place? He should have just done a smaller deal in the first place instead, again, same with Terry's contract. That's bad GMing.

When the Celtics brought in Terry to replace Allen and Lee in the off season two summers ago - everyone was excited about it.  If KG and Pierce hadnt lost a step, if Jeff Green didnt loose a full season, if Rondo didnt get hurt, if Terry didnt stink - Hell if 2 of those didnt happen, the Celtics would have been in the thick if it as late as last year and the Lee signing would have made perfect sense.

Looking back NOW and saying this or that was a mistake, with the benefit of hindsight is the very definition of a "Monday Morning Quarterback"

gyso wrote:KJ,

When the Celtics signed Jason Terry and Courtney Lee, the Celtics were still considered to be contenders.  The previous year, the playoffs almost ended with a trip to the finals.  Many would say the season ended with a ref rob-job.

JT was signed using the mid-level exception (MLE), guaranteed, for three years.  That was:

1. Before Ray Allen jumped ship, so JT was an addition to the prior team.
2. When almost everyone thought JT was still in the late stages of his prime years.
3. Considered to be typical of what quality free agents of his ilk cost for contenders.
4. Considered to be a good signing at the time (ie: good GMing)

CL was signed to a MLE sized contract, guaranteed, for three years.  That was:

5. After Ray Allen jumped ship, so CL was a replacement of a lost asset.
6. After the Celtics had used up the MLE for that year and had NOTHING left to sign a good player.
7. A contract cobbled together using sticks and twigs.
8. Considered to be a great signing at the time (ie: great GMing), considering #6 & 7.
9. A sign-and-trade, which required a 3-year contract.
10. Considered to be typical of what quality free agents of his ilk cost for contenders.

After the next season, Ainge decided that the Celtics were no longer contenders.  He:

11. Traded three over paid, past their prime players for a couple of "good player- bad contract" guys and three 1st round draft picks.
12. Traded one of the highest-paid coaches (who wanted out anyway) for a 1st round draft pick.
13. Signed a coach out of nowhere, who seems to be a great choice for a rebuilding non-contending team.
14. Traded a multi-year contract (that no longer made sense) for an expiring contract.

The biggest difference between then and now is that after last season, the Celtics are no longer considered to be contenders.  Contenders generally over-pay and non-contenders should not.  Another difference is found when comparing JT's/CL's contract and skill level with that of Keith Bogans' contract.  The prior contracts were MLE (ish) three year, all guaranteed and the latter was MLE (ish) three year, non-guaranteed in the last two years.  That contract (KB's) is considered by many experts to be extremely tradable throughout it's timeframe, due to it's size and it's expiring nature (and maybe should have been included as #15 above).

All the above were considered (at the time) to be good to great GMing.  I don't see where you can look at older contracts in the now and consider that as bad GMing, and when circumstances change and those contracts are off-loaded, that is considered to be "lucky" and not good GMing.  Perhaps the other guys are just bad GM's.

NBA contracts just cannot be looked at out of context.  KB is making more money in this one year than he practically did his entire career, but was over-paid for the above reason plus it was necessary in order to make the Celtic-Net trade.  I have read that both Gerald Wallace and Kris Humphries were over-paid by the Nets just so that Brooklyn could have some large salaries to trade for other large salaried better-quality players.

gyso

PS:  Third man in is a penalty in hockey, so I will just have to go sit in the box for a couple minutes.  Or is it five, I cannot remember. (LOL)

k_j_88 wrote:

gyso wrote:KJ,

When the Celtics signed Jason Terry and Courtney Lee, the Celtics were still considered to be contenders.  The previous year, the playoffs almost ended with a trip to the finals.  Many would say the season ended with a ref rob-job.

JT was signed using the mid-level exception (MLE), guaranteed, for three years.  That was:

1. Before Ray Allen jumped ship, so JT was an addition to the prior team.
2. When almost everyone thought JT was still in the late stages of his prime years.
3. Considered to be typical of what quality free agents of his ilk cost for contenders.
4. Considered to be a good signing at the time (ie: good GMing)

CL was signed to a MLE sized contract, guaranteed, for three years.  That was:

5. After Ray Allen jumped ship, so CL was a replacement of a lost asset.
6. After the Celtics had used up the MLE for that year and had NOTHING left to sign a good player.
7. A contract cobbled together using sticks and twigs.
8. Considered to be a great signing at the time (ie: great GMing), considering #6 & 7.
9. A sign-and-trade, which required a 3-year contract.
10. Considered to be typical of what quality free agents of his ilk cost for contenders.

After the next season, Ainge decided that the Celtics were no longer contenders.  He:

11. Traded three over paid, past their prime players for a couple of "good player- bad contract" guys and three 1st round draft picks.
12. Traded one of the highest-paid coaches (who wanted out anyway) for a 1st round draft pick.
13. Signed a coach out of nowhere, who seems to be a great choice for a rebuilding non-contending team.
14. Traded a multi-year contract (that no longer made sense) for an expiring contract.

The biggest difference between then and now is that after last season, the Celtics are no longer considered to be contenders.  Contenders generally over-pay and non-contenders should not.  Another difference is found when comparing JT's/CL's contract and skill level with that of Keith Bogans' contract.  The prior contracts were MLE (ish) three year, all guaranteed and the latter was MLE (ish) three year, non-guaranteed in the last two years.  That contract (KB's) is considered by many experts to be extremely tradable throughout it's timeframe, due to it's size and it's expiring nature (and maybe should have been included as #15 above).

All the above were considered (at the time) to be good to great GMing.  I don't see where you can look at older contracts in the now and consider that as bad GMing, and when circumstances change and those contracts are off-loaded, that is considered to be "lucky" and not good GMing.  Perhaps the other guys are just bad GM's.

NBA contracts just cannot be looked at out of context.  KB is making more money in this one year than he practically did his entire career, but was over-paid for the above reason plus it was necessary in order to make the Celtic-Net trade.  I have read that both Gerald Wallace and Kris Humphries were over-paid by the Nets just so that Brooklyn could have some large salaries to trade for other large salaried better-quality players.

gyso

PS:  Third man in is a penalty in hockey, so I will just have to go sit in the box for a couple minutes.  Or is it five, I cannot remember. (LOL)

The window was closing. I realize that injuries hastened that, but I didn't really think the KG-PP having a chance would last beyond this season anyway. This is somewhat of a rhetorical questions but at the time did Ainge think he could squeeze another 4 years (length of Lee's contract) out of them? After such long careers, that wouldn't really sound feasible.

In either case, they freed up some salary space for next year. But I don't understand why they gave OKC a draft pick.



KJ