CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: chambers on February 19, 2013, 12:44:16 AM
-
So if Ferry ends up demanding Pierces deal and some assets for Smith ie;
Pierce, Sully,Melo +first rounder (give or take a pick or Melo), andthe Hawks drop his team option for 5 million next season . Can he sign a new cap friendly deal with the Celtics next season?
Is this legal? If so we could end up with
Rondo
Bradley
Pierce
Smith
Kg
Whilst keeping Green...
-
So if Ferry ends up demanding Pierces deal and some assets for Smith ie;
Pierce, Sully,Melo +first rounder (give or take a pick or Melo), andthe Hawks drop his team option for 5 million next season . Can he sign a new cap friendly deal with the Celtics next season?
Is this legal? If so we could end up with
Rondo
Bradley
Pierce
Smith
Kg
Whilst keeping Green...
Don't think so.
-
We would still have the taxpayers MLE so yes we would be able to if Pierce would sign for that.
If that's the asking price for Josh Smith who is in the last year of his deal, we are better off just keeping Pierce.
-
Guess what! Hawks don't want pierce, they'll take Green and Bass cause they think Green is like Smith and Smith will resign with the celtics.
-
No, I think a team has to wait a year now before they're allowed to sign a player they traded. That's why the Lakers couldn't even re-sign Derek Fisher earlier in the season if they wanted to.
-
No. Under Item 98 in CBA FAQ:
"A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season."
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap
-
No. Under Item 98 in CBA FAQ:
"A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season."
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap
I'm not sure if that would mean his original contract, or the date in which he gets waived.
-
Guess what! Hawks don't want pierce, they'll take Green and Bass cause they think Green is like Smith and Smith will resign with the celtics.
PM me the winning lottery numbers.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
-
The new CBA didn't do any favors to the Celtics. Last year, they had two 8 figure expiring deals that they couldn't do anything with because the new CBA outlawed "Catch and Release" transactions, and now Pierce can't come back here as a FA if he's traded and his new team doesn't exercise this option next season and make him a UFA.
I guess he could not sign with anyone for a year and then sign with the Cs after the trade deadline in 2014, which would satisfy the one year requirement, but would be unprecedented.
-
No. Under Item 98 in CBA FAQ:
"A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season."
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap
Yeah I was under the impression it was during the same season, not calendar year.
Don't know what date Pierce's contract would become fully guaranteed (one would assume it is July 1 though), but even if he gets bought out after that, it would be considered during the following season.
Either way, I do believe if the C's were to trade him and he gets bought out, he could (would?) return in the offseason.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Because the Hawks would like to get draft picks and one of our young cheap contracts (Sully, Bradley, Melo) to go along with Pierce to get something long-term for Smith while maintaining a lot of cap flexibility. They've got barely $20 mil committed next year, and don't want to mess that up too much while getting other things for Smith.
-
No. Under Item 98 in CBA FAQ:
"A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season."
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap
Yeah I was under the impression it was during the same season, not calendar year.
Don't know what date Pierce's contract would become fully guaranteed (one would assume it is July 1 though), but even if he gets bought out after that, it would be considered during the following season.
Either way, I do believe if the C's were to trade him and he gets bought out, he could (would?) return in the offseason.
If he gets bought out, that would be the same thing as getting waived, essentially. The NBA considers his contract to end June 30, 2014, which is why non-guaranteed deals can be traded in June (expiring deals cannot.) If he is let go, and he doesn't sign anywhere else over the summer, we could bring him back in February for the stretch run. Or if he signs somewhere else, we could trade for him as early as next December. But that's it.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Yeah exactly. They arent going to salary dump Smith because he can just walk at the end of the season and the Hawks save money that way. If they are going to trade Smith they are gonna want something of value in return. If they wanted a salary dump they could just play him out the year and let him walk at the end.
Regardless I dont see why Atlanta would want Pierce. They aren't big time contenders at the moment and I would assume would want younger assets to continue to build with.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Because the Hawks would like to get draft picks and one of our young cheap contracts (Sully, Bradley, Melo) to go along with Pierce to get something long-term for Smith while maintaining a lot of cap flexibility. They've got barely $20 mil committed next year, and don't want to mess that up too much while getting other things for Smith.
Well they aren't getting Bradley. Melo isn't enticing and Sully is what he is, a talented but unathletic injured undersized PF. Neither Melo or Sully or our non-lottery pick are that great of assets.
Pierce makes more than Smith this year, costing ATL more money this year and that buyout (have heard some say $4M, some say $5M) would count against their cap next year. If they don't want to mess with their flexibility in the summer, they definitely don't want to shrink their cap space by wasting $4-5M for nothing.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Because the Hawks would like to get draft picks and one of our young cheap contracts (Sully, Bradley, Melo) to go along with Pierce to get something long-term for Smith while maintaining a lot of cap flexibility. They've got barely $20 mil committed next year, and don't want to mess that up too much while getting other things for Smith.
Well they aren't getting Bradley. Melo isn't enticing and Sully is what he is, a talented but unathletic injured undersized PF. Neither Melo or Sully or our non-lottery pick are that great of assets.
Pierce makes more than Smith this year, costing ATL more money this year and that buyout (have heard some say $4M, some say $5M) would count against their cap next year. If they don't want to mess with their flexibility in the summer, they definitely don't want to shrink their cap space by wasting $4-5M for nothing.
I guarantee you they want Pierce because of his $5 mil buyout (it was $4 mil if he didn't meet playing time thresholds, which he did.) Rumor has it they want a young center back with any deal for Smith, so both Sully and Fab could qualify. Smith makes $13 mil this year -- it's hard to find that much expiring to match, so they want to minimize what they get back, since they probably won't be able to negate it all.
-
Would you get back together with your long term girlfriend after she dropped you for a younger, better lookin rich guy for a half a year or weigh your other options?
Yeah, this is disrespectful to pierce
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
no clue why people keep coming up with this scenario lol
IF the hawks really want PP, they want him for his veteran leadership.
-
If PP is traded at the deadline, and his new team waives him this offseason to save the 11 or so million (taking on only the partially guaranteed portion of his deal), is there anything that would prevent him from re-signing with BOS on a cap friendly deal/MLE this summer?
-
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=62988.0 (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=62988.0)
-
No.
-
I don't know of any team in the league that would waive Pierce, even with his current salary, he's still way too valuable.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Exactly. People need to be realistic. The Hawks will get good value for Smith and even 1 year of Pierce (if they kept him next year) isn't good value.
-
Why would the Hawks trade for Pierce in order to "drop him", when they can just let Smith expire?
Exactly. People need to be realistic. The Hawks will get good value for Smith and even 1 year of Pierce (if they kept him next year) isn't good value.
The Hawks want prospects, picks, and an expiring deal. Pierce may be considered expiring because of his option, but that's a long shot, to say the least (not to mention that our ability to include picks and prospects is limited, to say the least).