CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: lightspeed5 on May 14, 2013, 04:40:07 PM
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/paul-pierce-reportedly-expects-boston-celtics-either-deal-151417058.html
Dickerson thinks that pierce thinks he will be traded.
-
No, Dwyer is running with Greg Dickerson's "scoop"/gut feeling/unnamed sources.
In other words, the journalist's favorite lunchtime special: leftover hash.
All with a grain of salt, this. We basically have one guy guessing what another guy is thinking about what another guy is thinking about what could happen in late June. That’s it.
250 words follow.
-
I agree that its a weak story. But, I also think this is likely true. Based on comments by Ainge and Pierce, I think he is coming to the end of the road in Boston. I just think everything is coming to a head, most likely before July 1st (although it could carry over to the summer, if they decide to work out a sign and trade, rather than a straight trade).
Here are the facts:
1. Pierce has value, both as a large, non-guaranteed contract, that could be used for a team to shed salary, and as a player who can still give a lot of on-court value to a contender.
2. Danny has gone on record saying he believes the team is more than 1 player away from a championship. Which would suggest he is unlikely to try to go all in next year with a similar roster.
3. Pierce has made it clear that he would be willing to play elsewhere next season, and he wouldn't hold it against Danny for trading him.
Basically, I think Pierce sees the writing on the wall that the window with this core is closed. And I don't think Pierce is that sentimental. I think he will welcome the chance to make one more run on another team to try to solidify his national legacy, now that his C's legacy is in good shape.
And for Pierce, there are a lot of teams he would likely love to go to. He could go to any number of contenders, and be happy to get to make a run next year. Or, he could go to a rebuilding team as cap relief, who would cut him, and allow him to choose his team next year. Either way, he should be pretty happy.
-
You forgot another point Chris:
4. Danny signed another SF to a 4 year 8 million per year contract.
-
You forgot another point Chris:
4. Danny signed another SF to a 4 year 8 million per year contract.
Yes. Exactly.
I just think both sides are on board with it being time to move on.
Of course the only question is, whether a deal is there to be had. Danny won't make a bad deal just to get Pierce out of town. But I think there will be deals there.
-
Informative post on Reddit by user FuManChusco:
FMC- To clear a lot up since I've been following this stuff as close as anyone and the celtics subreddit spends a fair amount of time breaking down our cap structure.
Most of this news is coming from Greg Dickerson. He's basing it off his sources within the organization. It's all rumored at this point. Our cap is at 76MM next year, 73MM of that is guaranteed. Ainge will make it a top priority to get under the luxury tax. Unless the luxury tax line is raised to 73MM or more, then we need to do more than just waive the china 3. The options are basically amnesty Pierce, this makes no sense, or waive his contract. Amnestying him costs Ainge 15MM, allows another team to get him for nothing, and still offers us no cap room to make moves this offseason (We'd be sitting somewhere between 58MM-61MM, which is basically the soft cap). Waiving him cuts 10MM off the cap, costs Ainge 5MM in guaranteed money, allows Pierce to enter FA (he's definitely clearing waivers with a 15MM cap figure), and allows the celtics to negotiate with him for the vet minimum or MLE if he truly wants to stay with the franchise (would put our cap at 63MM-66MM). If Pierce isn't traded, this may be the root Ainge takes, since getting under the luxury tax is a priority. We could waive the china 3 and attempt to dump lee/terry to a team with cap, but that's a risky endeavor since a decision must be made on Pierce by June 30.
If this does happen, expect KG to request a trade or retire. Might open up more cap room for the C's, but in all likelihood, he'd be going to a team for an expiring contract/young player/pick, which means that cap space would open up for 2014 summer. I'm not entirely sure what Ainge will do. If he's convinced he can get under the luxury tax without waiving Pierce, he won't waive Pierce. It doesn't open up cap space for us to drastically change our roster, and Ainge hates giving away assets for nothing. Expect Pierce to be heavily shopped along with KG and Terry. I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do, but a low playoff seed tax paying non-contender seems like a dumb option for Ainge. With Rondo out half a season, I expect a rebuild and a possible lottery pick in a stacked 2014 draft. Also, important to note that KG will probably only accept a trade to a few select teams (no trade clause) and Ainge would likely support Pierce's desire to not play for a Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. team. Plus, what non-contender is trading for one year of old Paul Pierce.
Some other user - thought under the new CBA a team couldn't re-sign a waived or traded player for one season... is there some other involvement here that negates this rule?
FMC- the new CBA established rules that disallow teams from resigning players for a year if they are traded or amnestied. In this situation, Pierce would be waived so there are no restrictions on the Celtics' ability to resign him. It's a little confusing if you don't pay close attention to this kind of stuff. However, the Celtics would still be over the soft cap, and by waiving him, they forfeit his bird rights. So we could only sign him to a vet minimum or by using the MLE.
some other user - Oh.... well it'd seem like a no brainer to do that then. I feel like at this point in his year, with a $5M guarantee, the vet min of $1.3M should be sufficient (if he wants to remain a Celtic... otherwise they could break off part of the MLE or use the bi-annual if available.
Thanks for the clarification.
EDIT: Couldn't any team then, under this CBA, waive a high capped player and then re-sign them to a cap-friendly deal? I feel like that doesn't make sense, I may be confusing myself.
FMC- No. Pierce has a provision where only 5MM is guaranteed money, and that's why this can happen. Let's pretend he doesn't have that provision and is owed 15MM next year. If we waive him, the full 15MM counts against the cap, plus whatever new salary he signs for counts against the cap. So it costs the organization more money and makes our cap figure even higher. It's so illogical you would literally never see it occur. In our current situation, Pierce is owed 15MM, but only 5MM is guaranteed. So we waive him, and save 10MM, both in the organization's pocket and against the cap. So we could then give him the vet min or MLE and still save somewhere between 4MM-8.5MM. Hope that makes sense.
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
-
Informative post on Reddit by user FuManChusco:
FMC- To clear a lot up since I've been following this stuff as close as anyone and the celtics subreddit spends a fair amount of time breaking down our cap structure.
Most of this news is coming from Greg Dickerson. He's basing it off his sources within the organization. It's all rumored at this point. Our cap is at 76MM next year, 73MM of that is guaranteed. Ainge will make it a top priority to get under the luxury tax. Unless the luxury tax line is raised to 73MM or more, then we need to do more than just waive the china 3. The options are basically amnesty Pierce, this makes no sense, or waive his contract. Amnestying him costs Ainge 15MM, allows another team to get him for nothing, and still offers us no cap room to make moves this offseason (We'd be sitting somewhere between 58MM-61MM, which is basically the soft cap). Waiving him cuts 10MM off the cap, costs Ainge 5MM in guaranteed money, allows Pierce to enter FA (he's definitely clearing waivers with a 15MM cap figure), and allows the celtics to negotiate with him for the vet minimum or MLE if he truly wants to stay with the franchise (would put our cap at 63MM-66MM). If Pierce isn't traded, this may be the root Ainge takes, since getting under the luxury tax is a priority. We could waive the china 3 and attempt to dump lee/terry to a team with cap, but that's a risky endeavor since a decision must be made on Pierce by June 30.
If this does happen, expect KG to request a trade or retire. Might open up more cap room for the C's, but in all likelihood, he'd be going to a team for an expiring contract/young player/pick, which means that cap space would open up for 2014 summer. I'm not entirely sure what Ainge will do. If he's convinced he can get under the luxury tax without waiving Pierce, he won't waive Pierce. It doesn't open up cap space for us to drastically change our roster, and Ainge hates giving away assets for nothing. Expect Pierce to be heavily shopped along with KG and Terry. I don't have a strong opinion on what we should do, but a low playoff seed tax paying non-contender seems like a dumb option for Ainge. With Rondo out half a season, I expect a rebuild and a possible lottery pick in a stacked 2014 draft. Also, important to note that KG will probably only accept a trade to a few select teams (no trade clause) and Ainge would likely support Pierce's desire to not play for a **** team. Plus, what non-contender is trading for one year of old Paul Pierce.
Some other user - thought under the new CBA a team couldn't re-sign a waived or traded player for one season... is there some other involvement here that negates this rule?
FMC- the new CBA established rules that disallow teams from resigning players for a year if they are traded or amnestied. In this situation, Pierce would be waived so there are no restrictions on the Celtics' ability to resign him. It's a little confusing if you don't pay close attention to this kind of stuff. However, the Celtics would still be over the soft cap, and by waiving him, they forfeit his bird rights. So we could only sign him to a vet minimum or by using the MLE.
some other user - Oh.... well it'd seem like a no brainer to do that then. I feel like at this point in his year, with a $5M guarantee, the vet min of $1.3M should be sufficient (if he wants to remain a Celtic... otherwise they could break off part of the MLE or use the bi-annual if available.
Thanks for the clarification.
EDIT: Couldn't any team then, under this CBA, waive a high capped player and then re-sign them to a cap-friendly deal? I feel like that doesn't make sense, I may be confusing myself.
FMC- No. Pierce has a provision where only 5MM is guaranteed money, and that's why this can happen. Let's pretend he doesn't have that provision and is owed 15MM next year. If we waive him, the full 15MM counts against the cap, plus whatever new salary he signs for counts against the cap. So it costs the organization more money and makes our cap figure even higher. It's so illogical you would literally never see it occur. In our current situation, Pierce is owed 15MM, but only 5MM is guaranteed. So we waive him, and save 10MM, both in the organization's pocket and against the cap. So we could then give him the vet min or MLE and still save somewhere between 4MM-8.5MM. Hope that makes sense.
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
This must be Rondo's surgeon cause he knows that he will be out half the season...............
-
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.
-
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.
Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/paul-pierce-reportedly-expects-boston-celtics-either-deal-151417058.html
Dickerson thinks that pierce thinks he will be traded.
And the drama begins...
Why people need drama... pathetic
-
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.
Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.
Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.
I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).
I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.
-
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.
Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.
Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.
I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).
I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.
There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.
-
I am hoping he is correct and DA figures out a way to keep the Captain.
I believe he is mostly right. The problem is, I just don't think its realistic to think the C's will cut Pierce, costing him $10 million+, and then he will just decide to resign for the vet minimum or MLE, particularly given the current state of the team.
Yeah I don't see Pierce getting cut and then coming back for the veteran's minimum. There would be too many other attractive options at that price and he'd rightly think if the c's really wanted him they could have just had him play out his contract for the full amount.
Particularly since cutting him wouldn't give them any more cap room to make the team better.
I think there is a scenario where you could possibly get a player on board, if their paycut would allow you to field a better team around them. But this paycut would really just be lining the owners pockets. (OK, maybe there are some luxury tax rule things where it could make a small difference...but not enough to sway him).
I don't think Pierce would take it personally. But I also don't think it would show him the type of dedication that would make him pass up a chance to contend on another team.
I think he could come back, but once other teams are legally allowed to talk to him, it could be harder. The biggest problem is that Danny has to make a decision on pierce before the salary cap/luxury tax levels are revealed. He might be willing to come back for the minimum, or the BAE, right now, but suppose the luxury tax level is high enough so that his old salary would have fit under the limit -- would he still feel as loyal then? Especially if the Clippers offer him the MLE?
-
I think Pierce stays.
Its one year. Dont think they would get a pretty package in return. Wasn't the best ofder at the deadline Humphries and Brooks? Haha
Danny has prepared people for the worst but just like every other year he rarely sees a deal worth it for Pierce.
Because as he's srated over and over and over again Pierce is a lot more valuable to the Celtics than anyone else in the NBA. And he means a lot more to Boston and the team than just playing basketball.
I just don't see Danny forcefeeding some move to get rid of him or just straight up cutting him
-
This is what it is.
1) With Pierce, KG, Rondo, Sully and other key additions, can we win it all?? With Pierce handling the ball quite a bit of the time, esp in the 4th, can we win??
2) IF Pierce gets traded in the offseason, does that actually hamper the team chemistry? Would it be better to start the season without him
3) If we trade Pierce before the season starts, what kind of Value can we get back? How many bad contracts would we have to eat up??
These are the million dollar question Danny has to think about. I don't think he feels comfortable to pay Pierce 15 million even if its only for a year, and worse get nowhere in the playoffs and lose out on a potential high pick. The confidence is not there, with everything he has said so far. He wants Doc and KG to be back, especially kg is still valuable as a Defensive anchor , plus his intensity and trainning will be good for the younger guys. But will KG comeback without Pierce?? Will Doc comeback without either stars? Remember if Doc leaves the team now , on a pretty high note with everything he has accomplished, he will likely get scooped up by a top level team. If he tries to manage a pp/kg less team, not only will he have numerous headaches but also his chances to get a top level job might be hampered.
I think Danny is going to explore a sign and trade by draft night. Two teams that are candidates for him are Brookly and LA Clippers. Brooklyn apparently offered a deal involving Humprhies, Brooks and a 1st. Or Clippers can offer a 1st , butler and other contract fillers. Either way getting a 1st would be key (esp if Danny is eyeing a late pick talent) plus whatever else best he could get.
KG i think won't be pleased of this , but still ends up staying. He is a loyal guy that hates change of scenery. And it will be his last year anyways. Doc stays for another year.
2013-2014 lineup
KG-Sully-Green-AB-Rondo
Bass, Humphries, Pietrus (fa signing example), Terry, T Will, and either two draft picks or one higher draft pick.
Goodbye Crawford ,Shav, White, Waive or trade Lee
-
On this one, I trust Dickerson less than CROTOR.
"The company that [Pierce] hangs around in", really? Not only do I marvel how any reputable journalist would even consider putting this out there, but the repackage it weeks after the fact... meh.
-
What about a S&T for Pekovic? Is something like that possible? If we could get him and Andre Miller I would be so happy. I don't think we're beating the Heat without some major changes that are not likely until 2015, so a Rondo stop gap and a long term Center would be really awesome.
-
The decision on whether or not to waive Pierce and save $10 million plus luxury tax (which would put the Celtics in line to have to pay the repeater tax in the future) has to be made before the July moratorium, thus before a sign-and-trade can be negotiated.
-
Ainge has also recently said that if Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are a team's 2nd and 3rd best players, or 3rd and 4th best players, that it's a "really, really special" team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/05/12/this-summer-may-danny-ainge-most-critical-with-celtics/ydUo8geFXRarAu6THDgMpM/story.html
By those comments, it sounds like Ainge is also fine with running it back one more year.
I don't see it as writing on the wall, so much as whispers in the wind. And the voices aren't all saying the same thing.
-
We can waive Pierce, pay him the $5M (it counts against cap) then structure the $10M he'd make over the next 2/3 years. Let's say it's $3M this year and $3.3M and $3.6M for the next 2 years with player options. That means it's $8M against the cap this year which saves us $7.2M while keeping the team together.
The way you sell this to PP is that he can make his last 2-3 years as a Celtics more competitive while guaranteeing that he retires a Celtic through a no-trade clause. I don't see why he wouldn't do this. If it's a money thing then I don't begrudge Ainge cutting or trading him in the off-season.
Ainge has also recently said that if Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are a team's 2nd and 3rd best players, or 3rd and 4th best players, that it's a "really, really special" team.
I could not agree more. Having 4-6 players that are all good to great players is how we'll beat the Heat next year. Hopefully the Grizzlies do it this year :) Especially if we get a reasonably good center in the draft. Gobert, Dieng or even a FA big who can eat up minutes without blowing a lead.
-
Ainge has also recently said that if Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are a team's 2nd and 3rd best players, or 3rd and 4th best players, that it's a "really, really special" team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/05/12/this-summer-may-danny-ainge-most-critical-with-celtics/ydUo8geFXRarAu6THDgMpM/story.html
By those comments, it sounds like Ainge is also fine with running it back one more year.
I don't see it as writing on the wall, so much as whispers in the wind. And the voices aren't all saying the same thing.
Green and Rondo?
-
Ainge has also recently said that if Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are a team's 2nd and 3rd best players, or 3rd and 4th best players, that it's a "really, really special" team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/05/12/this-summer-may-danny-ainge-most-critical-with-celtics/ydUo8geFXRarAu6THDgMpM/story.html
By those comments, it sounds like Ainge is also fine with running it back one more year.
I don't see it as writing on the wall, so much as whispers in the wind. And the voices aren't all saying the same thing.
Green and Rondo?
Presumably. Clearly Rondo, since PP and KG would agree with that. And the way Green played the last 1/4 of the season, he's certainly at least on the cusp of surpassing Pierce.
It would be even better of they were the 4th and 5th best players, however.
-
Ainge has also recently said that if Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett are a team's 2nd and 3rd best players, or 3rd and 4th best players, that it's a "really, really special" team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/05/12/this-summer-may-danny-ainge-most-critical-with-celtics/ydUo8geFXRarAu6THDgMpM/story.html
By those comments, it sounds like Ainge is also fine with running it back one more year.
I don't see it as writing on the wall, so much as whispers in the wind. And the voices aren't all saying the same thing.
Green and Rondo?
Presumably. Clearly Rondo, since PP and KG would agree with that. And the way Green played the last 1/4 of the season, he's certainly at least on the cusp of surpassing Pierce.
It would be even better of they were the 4th and 5th best players, however.
Sully?
-
I don't see any reason to doubt that Pierce feels this way or that people in his personal circle (his agent, likely) feel this way. The question is: how good is Paul Pierce at figuring out what Danny Ainge is thinking?
-
If only we'd gotten David west.
-
Proof. Proof. Proof.
-
Is it possible to skip this complicated waiver-free agency-re-sign route by sitting down with Pierce to agree what part of the unguaranteed 10.3 million portion of his salary he can do without for the team?
-
I am skeptical at best that Pierce would announce this on his facebook page, not his facebook fan page but his "personal" facebook page. This page is most assuredly not run by Paul Pierce or anyone who knows him.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.pierce.35325074 judge for yourself though. I wish facebook was verified like twitter.
-
Is it possible to skip this complicated waiver-free agency-re-sign route by sitting down with Pierce to agree what part of the unguaranteed 10.3 million portion of his salary he can do without for the team?
Unfortunately, no.
-
I am skeptical at best that Pierce would announce this on his facebook page, not his facebook fan page but his "personal" facebook page. This page is most assuredly not run by Paul Pierce or anyone who knows him.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.pierce.35325074 judge for yourself though. I wish facebook was verified like twitter.
It's a fake (see last post from this thread) http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=64905.0
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
stoudemires being paid 20 mill right now to play 5 min a game.
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
stoudemires being paid 20 mill right now to play 5 min a game.
agree, if i'm a GM of the east lets say cleveland who does not have a SF, i pay pierce 15m as long as he gave me 18 to 24 points a game 6 to 8 rebounds and 6 to 8 assist, never mind the turnovers, what matters is veteran leadership, and experienced that is what the team lacks off, even OKC needs fisher and perkins championship winners, just to mentor them
biedrin
kaman
walton
stoudamaire
ellis
turgoklu
kwame brown
haywood
etcs;
these guys are overpaid
i'm with pierce in any team
even nba 2k13 video game shows it, pierce can score
even what team you placed him there
even beisde lebron or durant, he can still score
as long as he contributes, i'll take him
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
-
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age. The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE. A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.
-
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age. The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE. A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.
cleveland and golden state will pay pierce max? agree?
-
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age. The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE. A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.
That's true. I could see Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee (& maybe WAS/PHI/ATL?) paying Pierce a decent contract though (say $8-$10mil). But you're right, the market is pretty limited at the moment...and I think Pierce would prefer to stay on the West Coast i.e. GSW/LAC/SA (assuming Boston wasn't an option), so his choices are pretty slim.
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
We live in a world where there are some bad contracts in the NBA... When was it any different?
Also, the business decision that's being made is not as simple as you describe it. You can either have Pierce and pay $15 million, or have nothing and pay $5 million.
So you're pretty much effectively paying Pierce $10 million to play, as the $5 are a sunk cost. Notwithstanding the fact that you can't replace him with anything other than a minimum contract signing.
-
i don't think letting pierce go is a smart move, he just needs a manu role imo a offensive spark off the bench while green starts.
let pierce and garnett play out there contracts, and try to find deals for lee,bass,crawford and maybe terry
This is a lot better than tanking ^
-
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age. The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE. A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.
cleveland and golden state will pay pierce max? agree?
I don't agree! Cleveland doesn't pay anyone max except Lebron, Durant or a young future prospect that they build around.
Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.
Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance. Celtics have the same decision to make!
-
lala lala not Listening. This thread makes me queasy.
-
lala lala not Listening. This thread makes me queasy.
+1
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
Boston....?
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?
We live in a world where there are some bad contracts in the NBA... When was it any different?
Also, the business decision that's being made is not as simple as you describe it. You can either have Pierce and pay $15 million, or have nothing and pay $5 million.
So you're pretty much effectively paying Pierce $10 million to play, as the $5 are a sunk cost. Notwithstanding the fact that you can't replace him with anything other than a minimum contract signing.
Made up my mind. Not that I ever thought anything else unless some miracle dream trade fell in our lap.....
Keep him.
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
Boston...?
-
well, pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year. anywhere. he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.
a lot of players are getting paid more than they're worth on the court. PP adds more than his court skills to the Celtics as an organization. He's going into the last year of his deal. if he was on the books for more than a year at that rate, I'd think the possibility of him being dealt/bought out more realistic but for one year I think the C's hang on to him with the thought of resigning for a year at a much more appropriate salary
-
There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.
There would be zero cap benefits that would help us sign a better player than PP after we cut him. You think you could get a significant player to sign for the MLE??
We're only talking 3m here. I'd much rather trade away a guy like Terry, Lee or Bass than cut Pierce. There's no way he resigns for the vet min, when other teams who can actually contend would love to have him.
Trading Pierce makes the most sense if we can't make a move to shed 3m in salary. Don't know who he would goto or what we could get back in return though.
Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.
Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance. Celtics have the same decision to make!
Actually Golden State is EXACTLY the type of team who would benefit most from Paul Pierce. He offers veteran leadership and clutch scoring to close out games. They have extra talent to use as trade chips. Plus they are a Western team, and Pierce apparently would love to go back home to California. It would be quite a good match, depending on what we get back in return.
-
There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.
There would be zero cap benefits that would help us sign a better player than PP after we cut him. You think you could get a significant player to sign for the MLE??
We're only talking 3m here. I'd much rather trade away a guy like Terry, Lee or Bass than cut Pierce. There's no way he resigns for the vet min, when other teams who can actually contend would love to have him.
Trading Pierce makes the most sense if we can't make a move to shed 3m in salary. Don't know who he would goto or what we could get back in return though.
Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.
Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance. Celtics have the same decision to make!
Actually Golden State is EXACTLY the type of team who would benefit most from Paul Pierce. He offers veteran leadership and clutch scoring to close out games. They have extra talent to use as trade chips. Plus they are a Western team, and Pierce apparently would love to go back home to California. It would be quite a good match, depending on what we get back in return.
I agree Paul, as a player, would fit well on Golden State and they could send us back some young talent but no way they (or maybe anyone else) will commit $15 million for the role Paul can provide.
-
I assume that any Pierce trade to Golden State will involve Andris Biedrins (after he declines his ETO) in green. Of course, the Warriors have no draft picks this year (not even in the second round) to kick in.
-
There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.
There would be zero cap benefits that would help us sign a better player than PP after we cut him. You think you could get a significant player to sign for the MLE??
We're only talking 3m here. I'd much rather trade away a guy like Terry, Lee or Bass than cut Pierce. There's no way he resigns for the vet min, when other teams who can actually contend would love to have him.
Trading Pierce makes the most sense if we can't make a move to shed 3m in salary. Don't know who he would goto or what we could get back in return though.
Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.
Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance. Celtics have the same decision to make!
Actually Golden State is EXACTLY the type of team who would benefit most from Paul Pierce. He offers veteran leadership and clutch scoring to close out games. They have extra talent to use as trade chips. Plus they are a Western team, and Pierce apparently would love to go back home to California. It would be quite a good match, depending on what we get back in return.
My post was in response to someone saying we waive Paul in order to renegotiate his salary.
-
There would be cap benefits, cutting Pierce would allow us to avoid the tax apron and we'd be eligible for sign & trades, and have more money available for the MLE.
There would be zero cap benefits that would help us sign a better player than PP after we cut him. You think you could get a significant player to sign for the MLE??
We're only talking 3m here. I'd much rather trade away a guy like Terry, Lee or Bass than cut Pierce. There's no way he resigns for the vet min, when other teams who can actually contend would love to have him.
Trading Pierce makes the most sense if we can't make a move to shed 3m in salary. Don't know who he would goto or what we could get back in return though.
Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.
Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance. Celtics have the same decision to make!
Actually Golden State is EXACTLY the type of team who would benefit most from Paul Pierce. He offers veteran leadership and clutch scoring to close out games. They have extra talent to use as trade chips. Plus they are a Western team, and Pierce apparently would love to go back home to California. It would be quite a good match, depending on what we get back in return.
My post was in response to someone saying we waive Paul in order to renegotiate his salary.
Well you can forget any fantasy of them giving up Barnes for him
-
a lot of players are getting paid more than they're worth on the court. PP adds more than his court skills to the Celtics as an organization. He's going into the last year of his deal. if he was on the books for more than a year at that rate, I'd think the possibility of him being dealt/bought out more realistic but for one year I think the C's hang on to him with the thought of resigning for a year at a much more appropriate salary
At the end of the day if they keep him they will not overpay. They will waive him and resign him. It's a business.
-
a lot of players are getting paid more than they're worth on the court. PP adds more than his court skills to the Celtics as an organization. He's going into the last year of his deal. if he was on the books for more than a year at that rate, I'd think the possibility of him being dealt/bought out more realistic but for one year I think the C's hang on to him with the thought of resigning for a year at a much more appropriate salary
At the end of the day if they keep him they will not overpay. They will waive him and resign him. It's a business.
At the end of the day if he's waived I expect Pierce to sign a FA contract elsewhere.
-
Deal Pierce for Pau!
Gasol and KG in the front court would be nasty!
-
Deal Pierce for Pau!
Gasol and KG in the front court would be nasty!
Gonna make next year's finals something to watch.
It does happen to be a deal that would help both teams, but gosh is it gross.
-
My only question is can this team change its offense if Pierce is back. KG could, I think, adjust to a faster and more fluid approach that emphasized pushing the tempo and moving the ball. But while Pierce has never been a true ball hog like Kobe or Carmello, I can't imagine Pierce being happy playing a much smaller offensive role and I can't see Doc ever pushing him to accept it.
Mike
-
Gasol and KG in the front court would be nasty!
Gonna make next year's finals something to watch.
[/quote]
Yeah, I'd be quite curious whether the Thunder with a healthy Westbrook will finally be able to knock down the Heat.
-
Gasol and KG in the front court would be nasty!
Gonna make next year's finals something to watch.
Yeah, I'd be quite curious whether the Thunder with a healthy Westbrook will finally be able to knock down the Heat.
[/quote]
Green/KG/Gasol would be the best front line we've had since...you know when.
And Rondo is the best PG we've had since...I don't even know, but I'm going all the way back before Tiny to JoJo White at least.
All-NBA defense in Bradley.
Fair to say that we could have the best team in quite a while, possibly better than '08 if we had a shooter for a shooting guard.
Sully, Bass, Williams, Shav, and Lee off the bench.
I'll take that group against anyone.
-
Pierce is either gonna get traded, or is gonna be back with the team. The Celtics would be in a much better situation cap-wise riding out the year and letting him expire next year, rather than buying him out this year. Is getting under the tax floor, and gaining back the MLE for one year that important? The direction the Celtics would have to take if they were to dump Pierce would be a team struggling to make the playoffs. I'm sure Playoff revenue for that one extra year offsets the one extra year over the tax apron.
I bet this is Ainge's course of action this summer:
1) Looks for significant trade pieces for Paul Pierce that will both give us potential players for the future, and also draft picks without giving up good cap space position for the future.
2a) if Pierce gets traded, KG looks to be dealt as well or retire's.
2b) Pierce doesnt get traded, stays with the Celtics, KG comes back.
3) Look to deal anyone and everyone that could possibly make a contending team for this year. Either shedding salary, or getting players back. His semi-untouchables: Rondo, and Sully only go in a deal that blows him away.
4) Fill out the roster. Whether Pierce is here or not, if Ainge doesnt shed any of his other salary off this team, there is barely anything he can do with their current cap situation.
-
DA will do the same, try to get value for Pierce. But he's asking too much for other teams to accept (for example Barnes + expiring Biedrins or Jefferson).
So I think he won't find the trade he likes and Pierce will stay this year.
Meanwhile he has to find additional players that will make KG satisfied.
I think DA will have his toughest summer so far. I wouldn't like to be him right now. Anything he will do or not do won't please half of the fans. The cap situation is not good at all.
-
Declining the option on Pierce helps the C's how?
By saving money?
It doesn't get us under the cap.
And trading Pierce followed by the inevitable trade of KG helps this team how?
No team is going to gift us young talented players or top 1st round picks for two aging out the door stars.
The only option for DA is to trade for a late 1st rounder, then trade our own young talent for more late 1st rounders and rebuild from scratch and hope we suck for a while and get a great pick followed by a great player in the draft.