re: Offseason thoughts

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex, great to have you posting again.

> From: Alexander Wang <awang@xxxxxxx>
>
> 3. How does this apply to Rodney Rogers? I think many of us want Gaston 
> to bite the bullet and pay that $18M. You can reason that amortizing that 
> cost over a six year contract is only $3M per year, since next year we'd 
> probably be back below the pool threshold. Now the return argument could 
> be this though. Now that the luxury tax is starting to kick in, it's 
> becoming obvious that free agents are being squeezed, which makes it 
> easier for teams to steal quality players from each other using the 
> mid-level exception - basically what has happened with Billups and what 
> seems likely to happen with Rogers. This situation may continue next year:
>  there will be more buyers as several teams get under the cap but there 
> will be more sellers too, especially with several classes of restricted 
> and unrestricted free agents coming off their rookie contracts. It's 
> possible that a Rogers level talent or better will be available for the 
> mid-level exception. If we signed Rogers to a multi-year deal we would 
> probably not be able to use this exception due to being near the pool 
> threshold again. So from Gaston's point of view, he's probably thinking, 
> screw paying the extra $13M, I'll see what I can get next year instead 
> and save that money. (Of course the ideal situation is that he goes ahead 
> and pays the $13M and uses the exception every single year to get even 
> further over the threshold - this "almost hard cap" separates the haves - 
> Portland, NY, Dallas, and maybe Sacramento? - from the have-nots even 
> more.)
There is a middle-ground possibility between the ideal and the "screwing" 
though, isn't there.  Gaston could take the big hit for one year, then 
when Kenny's salary comes off the books, the C's payroll lowers by around 
$9mil or so, making it possible (likely, even?) that they're under the tax 
threshold.  This seems so obvious that i wonder what I'm missing, though 
Gaston paying out money to fellow owners is enough reason for him, I guess,
 not to want to explore that option.

There's also the "wink-wink" option: we sign Rogers to the $1mil offer and 
then turn around and give him a decent, multi-year contract (3 years or so?
  4?) next year.  Only we don't put anything in writing, obviously.  if I 
were Rogers, though, the combination of, at my advancing age and the risk 
of injury, and the penny-pinching of ownership, would make me think of 
this as an unattractive offer.  I mean, I think Wallace and Obie could be 
trusted, possibly, but Gaston will do what is best for Gaston in the 
short-term, possibly discounting long-term benefits.

While the team's owner might be thinking about what he might get on the 
cheap in the next few years to come, he has very little experience or 
skill in basketball evaluation.  When your two stars call up the office to 
express their desire to see a valued team member return, you fork out the 
dough and pay up.

Perhaps the fundamental conflict here is between winning and money.  If 
you conduct your NBA franchise entirely like a business, you will not win.
  If you say money is no object, then you pay a bucketload (and you still 
may not win).  Seems to me this CBA sets it up such that teams that wish 
to avoid breathing the same air as Dallas, Miami, the Knicks, the Blazers,
 etc. but who do wish to win (e.g. *not* the Clippers) will, at times, 
when the moon is positioned correctly, the stars aligned in the right 
fashion (that is, when you've got the talent -- perhaps two stars and a 
supporting cast), "make their run", bite the financial bullet for a few 
years, and go for broke.  With the possibility of re-signing Rogers, Kenny'
s salary coming off the books, a sleeper signing or two (Sundov?), the 
emergence of K. Brown, it seems that this may be one of those chances for 
the Celtics.

Bird

P.S. You know, the player''s union, when they negotiated this CBA, really,
 really screwed the pooch.  They seemed to be very willing to sign away 
privileges, and what about that whole idea that the league itself gets to 
decide on exactly what will be done in the case of basketball revenues 
being over the threshold.  I mean, didn't they have attorneys?  Why would 
you leave a distinct possibility up in the air like that?  What the hell 
kind of contract doesn't provide for this eventuality?  Very, very foolish.
  In hindsight, it looks like the union was mostly interested in fighting 
for the max contract and not the needs of most of their constituency.  Sad.
  Sad and foolish.  And, to be fair, the owners are no better.

Bird