ImageImageImage

The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009

Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman

User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#1 » by campybatman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:06 am

Anyone know how much the rookie salaries of J.R. Giddens and Bill Waller will affect the Celtics as far as the team going any further over the luxury tax? I understand that sacrifices are part of business. However, will it shape up that Posey will be the only player who returns to the roster among Boston's free agents. If you ask me, I say yes.

James Posey (will exercise player option)
Eddie House
Scot Pollard
Tony Allen (team must decide whether or not to extend a qualifying offer)
P.J. Brown (retire)
Sam Cassell

Given the above names, again, I see Posey as the one player who isn't expendable. I wouldn't object to resigning House. But, I realize now after the draft. It's probably unlikely to occur. Needless to say, one could project Giddens as (Tony) Allen's replacement and Wallker simply insurance in case a new deal can't be reached with Posey. Regardless, Walker adds depth at both forward positions and perhaps some at the two guard. Furthermore, I believe Ainge is confident that players like Powe, Davis and Pruitt will improve their games with more experience and playing time. However, I do feel that the team needs another veteran at center and point guard. With those two positions being shallow for depth unless the aforementioned players step up. One thing that concerns me is Powe and Davis as centers. They're undersized. The match up that night will dictate if they do or don't play more at center. But, wouldn't you prefer to have an actual center. Hence, another big man who's preferably six ten or taller with adequate skills to play in the post and provide defense, rebounding and some semblance of offense couldn't hurt.



In Posey, the Celtics had one of the most instrumental bench players in the league. Posey Average 7.4 points and 4.4 rebounds last season and his 11 points in Game 6 of the NBA Finals sparked the run that buried Los Angeles helped guide Boston to its 17th championship.

Ainge knows that it would be hard to replace that in the draft. He said the 30th pick has a five percent chance of being a starter and doubted if a player taken with the last pick tomorrow has a chance of helping the team.

“We have a deep roster as it is,” he said. “I don’t know. We hope that we can but the odds are we don’t.”

Ainge didn’t rule out the possibility of drafting a player and sending him overseas to develop, saying that a move like that would save a team when it came to the luxury tax as well as cutting the costs of developing the player. “Then when you get them,” he said, “you maximize their value when they do come aboard.”


http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... tics_blog/
GreenGrizz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Location: Vermont

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#2 » by GreenGrizz » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:09 am

How could we worry about the luxury tax when we are the world champs? The owner just bought Bill Walker.
User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#3 » by campybatman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:36 am

Here's some more information. It makes it a little clearer. Based on this, both Giddens and Walker could play overseas or simply one of them and the other is sent down to assignment in the NBDL. And Semih Erden is already playing professionally overseas.



The 30th overall pick is guaranteed to make $797,600 next season and $857,400 in 2009-10, with team options for two more seasons. The Celtics already are projected to have a hefty payroll of around $72 million next season, not including free agent signings.

When asked if there were any financial concerns regarding the 30th selection, Ainge said, "Financial concerns? We don't run it that way. At the same time we balance roster spot and payroll."

While the first pick in the second round makes a lot less ($442,114 next season) than the last selection of the first, there is a benefit for the latter. Buford pointed out that first-rounders can be under contract for four seasons, and restricted free agents after that time. Second-rounders can be unrestricted free agents in two years.



"I don't think it's a tough decision from a financial standpoint," Buford said. "I think it's tougher to trade it. Value in the draft at a rookie scale contract level is significant. If you have players on your roster at a rookie scale contract, that's a great value."



The Celtics also may consider sending the 30th selection to play overseas for more seasoning. Ainge said there are some prospects he would only draft if they agreed to go overseas first.



"There are players in the draft that you could do that with," Ainge said. "There are American players where you can find them a job overseas. That's a possibility and a discussion we're having with the deep roster we have."


http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... rd/?page=2
User avatar
ParticleMan
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,065
And1: 9,049
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
     

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#4 » by ParticleMan » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:34 am

I think that article doesn't have the facts straight.
The 2nd round pick salaries aren't slotted, they're negotiated. Last year we paid both Baby and Pruitt over 700k, which is barely below the #30 slotted salary.

Neither Giddens nor Walker are playing overseas. No way. Erden will, obviously, he's already there and under contract I believe.

I agree that it's likely that Posey will be the only FA brought back. Maybe House, if he's willing to accept the same salary. I don't see TA or the other guys back.

It would have been great to get a C with true size, but with the way Powe played and with Baby having another year of seasoning (and hopefulyy conditioning), we will be OK. I don't think that's long on our list of concerns.
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 13,345
And1: 1,478
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#5 » by GuyClinch » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:01 am

It would have been great to get a C with true size, but with the way Powe played and with Baby having another year of seasoning (and hopefulyy conditioning), we will be OK. I don't think that's long on our list of concerns.


I think Danny gets us a big. BBD CANNOT be counted on. He put on weight during the season.. Honestly I think he might get cut the way he is going...

Pete
User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#6 » by campybatman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:22 am

By the way, doesn't Ainge tend to sign his second round pick with part of the M.L.E. I remember this was brought up on here or I'd read something similar from a Boston article. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
User avatar
ParticleMan
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,065
And1: 9,049
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
     

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#7 » by ParticleMan » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:10 am

GuyClinch wrote:I think Danny gets us a big. BBD CANNOT be counted on. He put on weight during the season.. Honestly I think he might get cut the way he is going...

Pete


meh, i wouldn't give up on BBD that easily. obviously he needs a good offseason regimen. we'll see. he has said all the right things. fact is he is #3 PF on the depth chart right now and with Pose able to fill in at the 4, it's not clear we really have to count on BBD for anything. there will always be a 7-foot stiff we can pick up for the vet min ala pollard.

i think we give BBD a shot to be part of the rotation. also it's a contract year for him, so he needs to get his ass in shape and keep it in shape. he's gotta know that that's the main thing the C's and everyone in the league is going to be looking at. there's no question about his talent.
GreenGrizz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Location: Vermont

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#8 » by GreenGrizz » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:16 am

Hey guys, we are only fans. It is ridiculous by talking about it. It's AInge's job. He will get it done without listening to us.
User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#9 » by campybatman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:24 am

Well, the ownership experienced the good life as being the owners of a national championship franchise this season. So, they won't dare bring up financial concerns or tie down Ainge. They'll allow him to work... Still, Ainge knows he doesn't want to push it. Money's indeed tight. Last season of this time. You probably could resign everyone that's a free agent for Boston this year or even those that were traded to Minnesota. Well, maybe not Green. And still have money to spare to sign Jefferson to an extension.
LongTimeFan
Analyst
Posts: 3,227
And1: 292
Joined: Jul 17, 2003

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#10 » by LongTimeFan » Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:08 pm

Bonsa:

Yeh. DA loves to sign the second with part of the MLE. He likes to sign them to 3 year deal so we get their full Bird rights. This makes for a very valuable trading chip, if we trade them, and allows us to outbid everyone else, if we decide to keep them. Gomes is a perfect example of the former. Hopefully Powe is a perfect example of the latter.

Given DA's ability to spot future talent and the Celtics ability to nurture that talent, this makes perfect sense. We basically manufacture NBA rotation to starter type players out of peanuts and the MLE. Gomes and Powe are examples. Pruitt and Baby (only little Bird rights). Giddens we have full Bird rights and we'd like to use the MLE or the LLE to get Walker's Bird rights. Walker could end up as a legit rotation player.

It is a great strategy with high reward and low risk. This year the risk is different in that we may lose Posey. Or Allen. Or House.

DA will figuire it out. I doubt we get Walker's Bird rights.
User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#11 » by campybatman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:22 pm

What concerns me is that this is a different situation altogether. No longer can Ainge develop young talent to be a trade chip down the road. He must begin developing this young talent to replace those of Pierce, Garnett and Ray Allen. See, Phoenix could take my advice. They drafted Nate Robinson and Rajon Rondo in consecutive years only to trade their draft rights to New York and Boston. And the Suns still don't have a viable back up to Nash. Banks was a mistake that they'd realized in a hurry. I dislike this perception that Ainge stockpiles multiple draft picks in hope that one will stick to the wall like feces. No, you've to take on the mentality that all of these players are intended to be the next role players and full time starters on your team. There's no pressure on Pruitt. However, the same can't be said of young players such as Davis, Powe, Giddens and Walker. Yes, there's the addition of veteran free agents. But, they're just that: A veteran. Veterans are older and aren't long term solutions. For instance, Posey assumed a vital role on the Celtics this season and hopefully the next two or three seasons. Still, his replacement must be taken into consideration, simultaneously. The difference between a title contending team and a lottery team is simple. A lottery team has to accept this reality nearly all at once on their entire roster. Conversely, a contending title team can take a subtle approach at retooling at their own pace; filling in spots here and there one or two players at a time as each seasons comes and goes.
LongTimeFan
Analyst
Posts: 3,227
And1: 292
Joined: Jul 17, 2003

Re: The luxury tax implications for the C's in 2008-2009 

Post#12 » by LongTimeFan » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:00 pm

Bons:

Well, I think you have a good point. Nonetheless, these trading chips, if you like, cost us very little. Powe has already paid off way beyound what we put into him. Powe and Scal would make a very nice trading package.

The Garnet / Allen trades really depleted our number of marketable assets. This 2nd round stuff is DA's way of rebuilding the portfolio on the cheap.

Draft, Develope and Deal. We're rebuilding our trading assets.

Everything I think depends on Posey.

Return to Boston Celtics