Marquis Daniels To Celtics

Indiana Pacers free-agent guard Marquis Daniels has committed to signing with the Boston Celtics for next season, multiple news outlets are reporting.

The Boston Herald and the Boston Globe report that Daniels, who averaged a career-high 13.6 points and 4.6 rebounds last season, will either sign for the $1.9 million biannual exception or be delivered in a sign-and-trade deal with Indiana.

The Pacers declined to exercise their option on the 28-year-old in June, which would have been worth $7.3 million next year, according to the papers.

Daniels, who began his career in Dallas, has spent the last three seasons with the Pacers.

I see.
Our Celtics is on their way to 18th

Your? Celtics are looking pretty stacked, but so is everyone else. This is an exceptional signing, but if they lose KG again, they're toast.

Another good addition for the Celtics I supposed. They're packed with talent and experience, but I'm not sure if this addition will boost their championship value. We'll see.

Signings like this are pretty solid. They're neither huge risks financially, nor are the team's entire hopes pinned on the new acquisition. If it all goes wrong for the Celtics this season, it won't be because Daniels isn't good enough but the opportunity is there for him to do some nice things for them off the bench.

My expectations on this guy earlier in his career was pretty high, but he turned out to be just a regular player, not star quality. But I think he will be a good fit in Boston. Very good pick up I'd say.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... r_daniels/

Could be a sign-and-trade with the Pacers at least getting something back which would also allow the Celtics to keep this strange exception which Daniels' signing would have used.

man Boston trying to make a big run this year. I would love to see LA Boston II.

Whats the point of having a cap if there's so many exceptions

to create the illusion of a fair competition?

Boston definitely with more talent than the year they won it. The betting odds should reflect them as favorite, although lets not forget my Cavs won 66 last season, so just a tiny improvement and we are looking at around 70. Of course Boston's true strength may be shown in the playoffs, though the year they won it their playoffs weren't convincing prior to the Finals for whatever reason

" " Stop using it

Whats the point of having a cap if there's so many exceptions

Youre really right here. Those exceptions just make the whole system completely senseless.

It's not like the exceptions allow teams to sign a team full of All-Stars though. I guarantee that if the NBA adopted a hard cap without any exceptions, there'd be very vocal complaints about it preventing teams from keeping their best players.

A more even spread when it comes to allstars is not a bad thing.

It's not like the exceptions allow teams to sign a team full of All-Stars though. I guarantee that if the NBA adopted a hard cap without any exceptions, there'd be very vocal complaints about it preventing teams from keeping their best players.

Still I think it makes the art of negotiating quite unimportant. With all those rules and exceptions there is no real free market in the NBA. It's not like I think there should be a hard cap. But all those exceptions which allow good teams to add decent players for a championship run make it too easy. If there is no cap left to even sign a low salary player then it should not be possible to sign him.

I read an interview with Keith Glass (player agent) where he said he misses the old days when you had to be a good negotiator as an agent and as an executive. When you had to work out deals with rookies (no set salary). When he really had hard times negotiating with a guy like Red Auerbach.

And maybe it would really be interesting to see how it was when at least the luxury tax cap could not be exceeded.

He certainly has a point. But then there's players like Glenn Robinson who came into the league demanding huge contracts before they'd proved themselves at the professional level, even sitting out the beginning of the season because they couldn't come to an agreement.

I think the problem is that player salaries have ballooned to the point where a hard cap isn't feasible (I realise you said you weren't advocating one) and you've got to have some exceptions just so that teams can make moves and players have the freedom to change teams if they want. That said the idea of the luxury cap being an absolute limit over the salary cap is an interesting one, though I think with the dollar-for-dollar tax it kind of already is; it's just up to the teams to regulate themselves and bite the bullet if they're willing to pay the tax.

I do get where you're coming from though. It's amazing some of the exceptions and clauses that surface sometimes.

It's not like the exceptions allow teams to sign a team full of All-Stars though. I guarantee that if the NBA adopted a hard cap without any exceptions, there'd be very vocal complaints about it preventing teams from keeping their best players.

i would say, that signing a team full of all stars still does not guarentee a championship, you can ask the lakers about that one. the lack of a real cap is only going to help keep teams like the griz from ever being worth a damn in the nba. i know its "my" team thats over the cap right now and as much as i love watching this team i rather see a hard cap to spread out the compitition. the complaint about not being able to sign the stars can easily be solved if owners simply say "sorry pal not gonna bank the entire teams future on just you".


another idea i would like to see is the only way to go over a cap is be resigning players you originall drafted. i want to see players play for the teams they are drafted by. all these trade are fun during the offseason but i dont know, i guess i miss the old days

Wow... he had a $7M contract?

Whats the point of having a cap if there's so many exceptions

I like the draft and the puzzling because of the salary cap as much as the next guy but I think it's a crazy system.

I find it very peculiar that in a country where socialism is considered a curse word they have a system in place to 'spread the wealth' and 'level the playing field'. (in sports of all branches, which is designed for competition only)

Maximum salaries and teams owning the right to sign players before others, I don't think there is any sytem in the world where athletes have less freedom.

china?

I guess so.

This sure helps the C's. The East has three teams above others - Cavs, Magic and Celtics. Even more then last year. Cavs will get Moon also..

i would say, that signing a team full of all stars still does not guarentee a championship, you can ask the lakers about that one. the lack of a real cap is only going to help keep teams like the griz from ever being worth a damn in the nba. i know its "my" team thats over the cap right now and as much as i love watching this team i rather see a hard cap to spread out the compitition. the complaint about not being able to sign the stars can easily be solved if owners simply say "sorry pal not gonna bank the entire teams future on just you".

Fair enough, but consider what would've happened with the Celtics back in the 80s.

another idea i would like to see is the only way to go over a cap is be resigning players you originall drafted. i want to see players play for the teams they are drafted by. all these trade are fun during the offseason but i dont know, i guess i miss the old days

That's an interesting idea, but a bit too restrictive for my liking. I think you'd also have to allow for players who were acquired in draft day trades (eg Pippen for Polynice; you knew I was going to throw that one out there!) to count as being drafted if a rule like that was to be implemented.

I find it very peculiar that in a country where socialism is considered a curse word they have a system in place to 'spread the wealth' and 'level the playing field'. (in sports of all branches, which is designed for competition only)

Interesting parallel, but I'd disagree that the concept of fair play is equivalent to socialism. If there was no salary cap or salary scale, thus freeing the wealthiest owners to spend whatever they liked to get the players they wanted, a lot of teams wouldn't be able to compete and might arguably be out of the league. Some might say that's a good thing and that there are too many teams, but I think having too few teams would pose just as big a problem with fewer markets to generate revenue, repetitive Playoffs as the richest teams maintain a stranglehold on the top standings and possibly the collapse of the league as teams wildly overspend and fall deeper and deeper into the red.

I find it very peculiar that in a country where socialism is considered a curse word they have a system in place to 'spread the wealth' and 'level the playing field'. (in sports of all branches, which is designed for competition only)

Interesting parallel, but I'd disagree that the concept of fair play is equivalent to socialism.

You lost me here. Fair play is something completely different.

A few socialist aspects of this sytem:
- Players are 'shared'. They are somehow public property and all the teams get their 'fair' share.
This is a tremendous violation imo of the freedom of players. Mainly of their freedom of choice of employer (although of course their employer is The NBA officially) but I find it obscure. The maximum salary may also not be a violation by the law - because players voluntarily agree to play in the league of course, but it definitely reeks of socialism. At the very least I find it very un-American to not let the market decide somebody's pay.
- Helping out the weak, by giving them the higher draft pick.

If there was no salary cap or salary scale, thus freeing the wealthiest owners to spend whatever they liked to get the players they wanted, a lot of teams wouldn't be able to compete and might arguably be out of the league.

Let me start by saying those are two different things.

On being able to compete:
I don't understand why that is a bad thing. I don't mean compete at all, but for the big prizes. Again, this is a thing that reminds me strongly of socialism. Like everybody is entitled to an equal share of the succes. I don't get that. Especially not in sports, if one thing is not about that it's sports imho. We're not talking education or something. Why do NBA-fans in Memphis deserve a shot at the championship?

The purpose of being:
...doens't have to be championship-bound. I'm sure you're familiar with other sports where certain teams don't stand a chance to win anything for decades and still have a loyal fan base and do fine. There has to be some kind of enthusiasm once in a while but for fans of some teams a playoff spot can be reason enough to celebrate I think. If I compare it to soccer in my own country than many teams are ecstatic if they qualify for European competition, including my own team, and that adventure usually only lasts 2 or 4 matches.

Some might say that's a good thing and that there are too many teams, but I think having too few teams would pose just as big a problem with fewer markets to generate revenue, repetitive Playoffs as the richest teams maintain a stranglehold on the top standings and possibly the collapse of the league as teams wildly overspend and fall deeper and deeper into the red.

I don't have an outspoken opinion on the number of teams in the NBA, it's hard to estimate what's the ideal number, but as far as I'm concerned it's the more the merrier. I would say, let the market decide. It's good that the league is looking out for itself and wants to be stable and therefore teams support each other in some ways, but I think making sure any team can some day win it doesn't belong in there. However sharing tv revenue, services and what not is great.

The picture that you draw of the dominating filthy rich is not nice but let me say two things about it, while projecting the transfersystem of soccerplayers in Europe on the NBA.

First of all, imagine how these 1st tier teams and 2nd tier teams would look like.
NY, Boston, Dallas, L.A. and probably a few others would be STACKED. Let's assume they will be the Man Utd's and Real Madrid's and rule infinitely (while fighting fiercely among each other) those teams will be great. No wasted all-stars on sucking teams anymore, who (are forced to) piss half of their career's away missing out on the playoffs.

Some of these teams will still fuck up sometimes and have below par seasons. Like sauru said, 5 all-stars don't equal a championship team. Bad luck, injuries, things will happen and huge rivalries will flourish. And they will overspend but I don't think to the point of banktrupcy.

Now, there will be 2nd-tier teams. Let's say Orlando, Philly, Houston, whoever. They will have to outsmart the big money teams. Scout better, superior coaching, develop players, things like that and they might have a decent shot at the whole thing.

Teams between 21 - 30 (financially) will probably never be champions. But they can still be competitive and an attractive franchise. They should focus on developing young talent imo. They can provide these players playing time (the stacked top teams can't) and therefore get media attention as well because they will develop the new stars within their franchises that way. In Europe 2nd tier soccer teams sell their best players for huge amounts of money to the top teams and use that to grow financially and invest in new talent.

I also think btw that many (possibly foreign) filthy rich guys would buy franchises and make unexpected teams competitive as well.

P.S. I'm not allergic to socialistic practices at all. Universal health care for everyone!

One thing I forgot to mention. Money is not supposed to play a role in college hoops but players do have the freedom to go to the college of their choice and vice versa and some colleges have great reputation and attract some of the best players. Nobody screams foul play allthough some universities play for titles and other small ones only compete for the sake of competing and the outside shot of maybe. But the competition is still interesting and diverse and a big succes. (Also commercially, and the players can't get paid. Hmmm...)

I do see the parallel you're drawing there, but to me it's not so much a case of "sharing the wealth" as the NBA being a governing body that is setting a budget for its franchises, for the financial stability of each of the teams and the league overall. It helps that this does somewhat enforce a concept of "fair play" and "evening the playing field" (to use two common phrases that we've both thrown out there), allowing everyone to be competitive...in theory. Poor management will still squander away that competitiveness, but there's only so much the league can do to save teams from themselves.

However, salary scales and the salary cap not only prevent bigger market teams from snatching up all the good players simply because they're willing and able to spend a lot of money, but protect teams from spending themselves into bankruptcy which the league certainly wouldn't want to see happen. We can see the amount of money some owners are willing to spend with little success on the basketball court with these restrictions in place; one can only imagine what some teams would do if they were free to spend whatever they wanted with no restrictions. It may seem to share socialist principles, but I think it's more a case of trying to implement an economically sound business model to ensure the financial well-being of the league at large.

And I would say that is a good idea. We can see how the current state of the global economy has affected the NBA with declining ticket sales and revenue across the board, so it's no surprise that for the first time since the cap was introduced it's actually set to be lower this season than it was last year and is expected to drop again next year. That's the NBA reacting to the lost revenue, a form of belt-tightening if you will to discourage teams from slipping deep in to the red.

It's also worth noting that independent of their NBA salaries, players are free to earn other income including money from endorsements, movie roles, personal appearance fees and other miscellaneous business ventures while also being afforded a somewhat luxurious lifestyle with definite celebrity status and acclaim, despite technically being members of the working class. That's not exactly what the likes of Marx and Lenin had in mind.