House Money?

by Roy_Hobbs on Jun 14, 2009 11:47 AM EDT in News/Links Comment 20 comments

More photos » by Elise Amendola - AP

Much like last season with James Posey, a Mark Bartelstein client has the chance to greatly impact the Celtics' off-season. Mark Murphy reports:

[Eddie] House’s love for his current situation may not preclude him from testing the free agent market next month.
"We haven’t made a final decision," agent Mark Bartelstein said. "He’d love to stay in Boston. He loves everything about what he has here. The fans have been great to him, and he’s been a big part of the team."But I think it’s safe to say that he’s outplayed his contract."

"Everybody is a little unsure of [the economy]," said Bartelstein. "But I know this much - there’s a lot of guys who were backup players making more than Eddie who served as window dressing on their teams."

On one hand, of course, Bartelstein is correct; there are many players in the NBA with larger contracts who aren't as good as Eddie House. On the other hand, House is a one dimensional player coming off the best season of his career at age 30. Prior to signing in Boston, he'd bounced around to four different teams, none of which had paid Eddie more than $1.4 million. The $2,862,000 he's due to earn if he picks up his option may not be such a bad thing, then. If Eddie miscalculates here, he could easily end up with a minimum salary deal somewhere.

If House does elect to become a free agent, it will be an interesting decision for Ainge. As an "Early Bird" free agent, the Celtics could offer House any amount up to the MLE without having to dip into the mid-level exception or any other exception we have. However, does it make sense to pay Eddie $3 million-plus per season? There has been plenty of speculation that Danny is operating under a tight budget, especially because the Celtics are essentially paying a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax penalty on any player they sign next season. Another consideration to think about: if Eddie opts out, and Danny lets him walk, does that free up more money for BBD to come back?

I'm hoping that all of the questions above are moot, and that Eddie decides not to opt out. The current relationship seems to be working out great for both parties, and $2.8 million seems like fair compensation to me. Hopefully looks at Posey's choice to follow the money, and realizes that the grass isn't always greener.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

bye eddie

it was fun while it lasted.

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jun 14, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who is going to pay more for House?

No one did last season before the economy scared all the teams into not spending money.

by Wide Load on Jun 14, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Correct!

Eddie`s going nowhere.
Right now, he`s merely posturing.

by Title 18 on Jun 14, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody will — House would be a fool to opt out.

by Who on Jun 14, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

House will not opt out.

This is the only contract he’s ever made above $1.5mil. He’s not taking this risk.

If he does opt, if I’m Ainge, I’m offering him less money and keeping the contract to a one year deal.

by Who on Jun 14, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Eddie would be stupid to opt out

Eddie’s not going to make more than the 2.8 million that the Celtics are giving him. I’ve always felt that a player is usually more valuable to his own team that to any other because he knows the system and has chemistry with the players.

But I mean, the guy’s a severely undersized shooting guard with no athleticism at all. He’s not quick. He can’t create shots for himself or anyone.

"It will be fun watching the Lakers get those balloons down one at a time." - Bill Russell

by silvershamrocker on Jun 14, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s safe to say that he’s outplayed his contract […] there’s a lot of guys who were backup players making more than Eddie who served as window dressing on their teams.

No, Mr. Bartelstein, rather it’s safe to say those other guys have underperformed based on their contracts. Eddie’s contract, on the other hand, is right about where it should be.

by MattD on Jun 14, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Well put, Matt

-sw

"I didn't go there with the intentions of getting ejected. I went there with the intentions of just telling Kobe, 'You got to relax. You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?'" -Ron Artest, 05.06.09

by Steve Weinman on Jun 14, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like Eddie back...

… but if we could sign Flip Murray for a similar deal, would that be a net loss to our team?

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Jun 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, it really wouldn’t.

Eddie for 2.8 is a far better deal than Turnover Tony for 2.5, but boy, I can’t see paying Eddie any more than that.

by CoachBo on Jun 14, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Flip Murray?

Not a bad idea.

by correcttitle on Jun 14, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope that Eddie's agent is just doing his job here by considering all the options for his client...

… but that ultimately Eddie wisely decides not to opt out and to stay in Boston with his current salary, which is appropriate for what he brings to the team. I would be sad to see Eddie make a “James Posey” and leave the Celtics for more money (which he probably won’t found this summer considering the economy).

by Drucci on Jun 14, 2009 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Eddie Is Making what he's earned

Eddie will be back, draining threes for us next year that guys like Garnett, Pierce, and Ray set him up with.

by Tradetime on Jun 14, 2009 1:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Saying there were guys who did worse for their money

doesn’t exactly sound like a strong argument.

by clover on Jun 14, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bartelstein is high...

If he think he can do better for his client by declining 2.8 million dollars…

If he does opt out, he’s a goner. The Cs will sink his money into more important players. One-dimensional 6 foot shooting guards are easily replaceable…

Frankly, I hope he does opt out. He had a GREAT season shooting the ball last season, but I’d rather have defensive players coming off the bench. If he does opt out, it means we’ll have a better chance of resigning Baby and Marbury, both of whom are better, more complete players going forward.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jun 14, 2009 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

maybe

This offseason he’ll probably be easy to replace for the same or less money. His replacement needs to be a legit size for a shooting guard (or combo guard or a swing player) and play decent defense.

I like Eddie but when his shot is off, he’s not much use on the court. Opting out will be a foolish move financially for him but could really work out in the C’s favor. —>less guaranteed salary, thereby less money towards the luxury tax, where the MLE and LLE are more likely to be used to better fill the current holes without as much of a hit on the luxury tax.

by slamtheking on Jun 14, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there’s a sucker born every minute and whoever goes after eddie is on the minute. i could see someone giving him the same money and more years ( 2 ), which eddie would take.

by nazzbo on Jun 14, 2009 5:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope he opts out . It wll be doing us a favor. That money can be spent to restructer our bench. We have 4 good spots to fill. (1) Tony Allen, (2) Mike Moore, (3) Stephon, (4) Scal. (5) House. They make over 10Mil. and we only get back a short return. I remember Doc saying that Tony was a much better player if he has extended floor time. Well he cant get that here.

Grant Hill only makes 1.9mil and can still out play any one the five. He’s needed veteran leadership that Doc always speaks. Before you dismis the idea look at his stats on a lousy team.

Let’s talk about Big Baby. If he costs above 3.5mil. Let him go. Spend that money on a 6’11 guy. that’s our real need. We should get McDyess, Grant Hill, and either Gortat or ZAZA Pachulia

by tyquinton on Jun 15, 2009 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs