NBA source says Paul Pierce's family is preparing for relocation from Boston

[Tr1boy]

The only way a sign and trade happens is, if the Celts get an expiring contract(s), plus a young prospect or picks. Pierce also will have his input where he wants to go, which will be a team somewhere in the west coast. So chances of a trade like this happening is near nil

Best thing danny to do , even if he has to absorb the 15 million for next year is to just buy him out. You get 5 million dollars to pick one or two decent vets, hopefully can nail a home run in the draft and kg stays.

[Tgro]

What kind of cap situation does this put us at if say he is bought out and KG retires? Could we buy KG out of his contract to make more room? I think this would be the only thing to make me feel better. Meaning if Pierce is gone we have someone to sign for the now to help compete with this roster and for the future.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/2/14/3988242/cap-questions-could-josh-smith-replace-kg-and-pierce

Reading that, I would think unless we're going to seriously tank next season, I would think they have to or would just want to "run it back" one more time.

I don't see how we would put a contending team on the floor otherwise.

Not that we would be a contender running it back, we'd be closer than we would doing all that waiving/contract manipulating just to sign 1 decent player who just keeps us mediocre at best.

It's almost like an aging rock band who's time is up. Let them have a farewell tour. I don't think we're going to do any better no matter what anyway. We should almost look at it as a throwaway season with training for the "afterlife" under the wings of future Hall Of Famers.

[snively]

Surprised by how many reports there are of Pierce leaving this summer.

I still believe it's a long shot that is anywhere other than Boston. It is just so hard for this team to rebuild properly (in the immediate sense) with all of the contracts currently on the books. It's looking very hard to find any added-value for the team in dumping Pierce.

I think there are two explanations:

1. The team is committing to Jeff Green as the starting SF for the immediate future and keeping Pierce will just force one of them to play out of position for extended minutes.  Further, Pierce's expiring contract and ability make him the best option for bringing in a starter-level player at another position of need or a pick/prospect that could develop into such a player.

2.  There's a possibility that ownership has asked Ainge to get under the tax this year.  That they don't want to pay the new punitive rates.  And Pierce is just the easiest guy to move/waive to get us under that threshold. 

[CelticG1]

Pierce has repeatedly hinted that if the C's stop trying to contend he'd play out his career elsewhere. As he should, he still have plenty of basketball left.

Yeah not really news. If KG retires and we go full on tanking than Pierce wiuld prob want to leave.

As currently constructed I can't see Pierce asking to leave unless Danny forced his hand

[mmmmm]

Surprised by how many reports there are of Pierce leaving this summer.

I still believe it's a long shot that is anywhere other than Boston. It is just so hard for this team to rebuild properly (in the immediate sense) with all of the contracts currently on the books. It's looking very hard to find any added-value for the team in dumping Pierce.

I think there are two explanations:

1. The team is committing to Jeff Green as the starting SF for the immediate future and keeping Pierce will just force one of them to play out of position for extended minutes.  Further, Pierce's expiring contract and ability make him the best option for bringing in a starter-level player at another position of need or a pick/prospect that could develop into such a player.

2.  There's a possibility that ownership has asked Ainge to get under the tax this year.  That they don't want to pay the new punitive rates.  And Pierce is just the easiest guy to move/waive to get us under that threshold.

While I think your explanations of why this topic is hot are correct (in that those are the reasonings people keep stating), I can't help but offer the responses:

1) In reality, as of the 2nd half of the season, Green and Pierce were far more complementary than competitive.    Indeed, the team performance was dramatically better with _both_ on the floor than not.   The Net ratings (points per 100 possessions) of various twosomes (the ones that logged a lot of minutes) went something like this:

KG & PP   +8.7
JG  &  PP   +8.4
JG  & KG  +7.6

and then ... every other two-some combo at below +5. 

Of note - no twosomes of 'PP+anybody' or 'JG+anybody' came close to those numbers.

Basically, we had a LOT more success when we used the BOTH of them as complementary, balancing parts of the offense (along with KG, of course).   So I'm not convinced that retaining Pierce really 'impedes' Green's development.

Unless we replace Pierce with another, legit scoring weapon to balance Green, I don't think that necessarily 'helps' Green to get rid of Pierce.

2)  If luxury tax savings is the goal, then the only real option is the 5M buyout, since that would shave some 10M off the actual money spent.  None of the other discussed options reduces the actual money spent .    Considering that move doesn't free up actual soft cap space, I have a hard time believing we'd let Pierce walk as a free agent to go play anywhere for dirt cheap, with no compensation back, simply to save a few bucks.     If Pierce is gone, I feel a trade is the far more likely reason.

[SparzWizard]

Not Pierce's fault if he leaves the Celtics. He wants to remain a Celtic and retire a Celtic.

Danny is the one pulling the strings here. So ya'll know who to bash and flame on when he pulls the trigger on Pierce.

[snively]

Surprised by how many reports there are of Pierce leaving this summer.

I still believe it's a long shot that is anywhere other than Boston. It is just so hard for this team to rebuild properly (in the immediate sense) with all of the contracts currently on the books. It's looking very hard to find any added-value for the team in dumping Pierce.

I think there are two explanations:

1. The team is committing to Jeff Green as the starting SF for the immediate future and keeping Pierce will just force one of them to play out of position for extended minutes.  Further, Pierce's expiring contract and ability make him the best option for bringing in a starter-level player at another position of need or a pick/prospect that could develop into such a player.

2.  There's a possibility that ownership has asked Ainge to get under the tax this year.  That they don't want to pay the new punitive rates.  And Pierce is just the easiest guy to move/waive to get us under that threshold.

While I think your explanations of why this topic is hot are correct (in that those are the reasonings people keep stating), I can't help but offer the responses:

1) In reality, as of the 2nd half of the season, Green and Pierce were far more complementary than competitive.    Indeed, the team performance was dramatically better with _both_ on the floor than not.   The Net ratings (points per 100 possessions) of various twosomes (the ones that logged a lot of minutes) went something like this:

KG & PP   +8.7
JG  &  PP   +8.4
JG  & KG  +7.6

and then ... every other two-some combo at below +5. 

Of note - no twosomes of 'PP+anybody' or 'JG+anybody' came close to those numbers.

Basically, we had a LOT more success when we used the BOTH of them as complementary, balancing parts of the offense (along with KG, of course).   So I'm not convinced that retaining Pierce really 'impedes' Green's development.

Unless we replace Pierce with another, legit scoring weapon to balance Green, I don't think that necessarily 'helps' Green to get rid of Pierce.

2)  If luxury tax savings is the goal, then the only real option is the 5M buyout, since that would shave some 10M off the actual money spent.  None of the other discussed options reduces the actual money spent .    Considering that move doesn't free up actual soft cap space, I have a hard time believing we'd let Pierce walk as a free agent to go play anywhere for dirt cheap, with no compensation back, simply to save a few bucks.     If Pierce is gone, I feel a trade is the far more likely reason.

1.  I didn't say Pierce was impeding Green's development.  Just that one of them has to play out of position when they play together.  Both players are at their best defensively playing the 3 (from a man and team defense perspective).  Offensively, it works better, but it's still not an ideal pairing overall.

2.  I don't want this to be the reason, but it might be.  It would sting to get nothing in return for a player of Pierce's caliber.  That said, waiving Pierce isn't the only way to save money on his deal.  A trade like Pierce for Bledsoe, Butler and Grant Hill would bring the C's much closer to being under the tax.

[rutzan]

Surprised by how many reports there are of Pierce leaving this summer.

I still believe it's a long shot that is anywhere other than Boston. It is just so hard for this team to rebuild properly (in the immediate sense) with all of the contracts currently on the books. It's looking very hard to find any added-value for the team in dumping Pierce.

THIS...THIS...THIS...

when are people going to realize THIS...

exactly THIS...

we will never get equal value...

never...never...never...

people keep talking about all these trade rumors that involve players that have never even been all-stars...and...probably never be all-stars...much less HOF...

don't people realize that these proposed teams and proposed trades are involving players they don't want...

or...it's because these other teams want some kind of cap relief or financial relief...

they are not going to trade with us to help us...they are in it to help themselves...

i hope and pray DA knows and realizes this and doesn't panic or get strong-armed into some deal for someone else's spare parts...

[mmmmm]

Surprised by how many reports there are of Pierce leaving this summer.

I still believe it's a long shot that is anywhere other than Boston. It is just so hard for this team to rebuild properly (in the immediate sense) with all of the contracts currently on the books. It's looking very hard to find any added-value for the team in dumping Pierce.

I think there are two explanations:

1. The team is committing to Jeff Green as the starting SF for the immediate future and keeping Pierce will just force one of them to play out of position for extended minutes.  Further, Pierce's expiring contract and ability make him the best option for bringing in a starter-level player at another position of need or a pick/prospect that could develop into such a player.

2.  There's a possibility that ownership has asked Ainge to get under the tax this year.  That they don't want to pay the new punitive rates.  And Pierce is just the easiest guy to move/waive to get us under that threshold.

While I think your explanations of why this topic is hot are correct (in that those are the reasonings people keep stating), I can't help but offer the responses:

1) In reality, as of the 2nd half of the season, Green and Pierce were far more complementary than competitive.    Indeed, the team performance was dramatically better with _both_ on the floor than not.   The Net ratings (points per 100 possessions) of various twosomes (the ones that logged a lot of minutes) went something like this:

KG & PP   +8.7
JG  &  PP   +8.4
JG  & KG  +7.6

and then ... every other two-some combo at below +5. 

Of note - no twosomes of 'PP+anybody' or 'JG+anybody' came close to those numbers.

Basically, we had a LOT more success when we used the BOTH of them as complementary, balancing parts of the offense (along with KG, of course).   So I'm not convinced that retaining Pierce really 'impedes' Green's development.

Unless we replace Pierce with another, legit scoring weapon to balance Green, I don't think that necessarily 'helps' Green to get rid of Pierce.

2)  If luxury tax savings is the goal, then the only real option is the 5M buyout, since that would shave some 10M off the actual money spent.  None of the other discussed options reduces the actual money spent .    Considering that move doesn't free up actual soft cap space, I have a hard time believing we'd let Pierce walk as a free agent to go play anywhere for dirt cheap, with no compensation back, simply to save a few bucks.     If Pierce is gone, I feel a trade is the far more likely reason.

1.  I didn't say Pierce was impeding Green's development.  Just that one of them has to play out of position when they play together.  Both players are at their best defensively playing the 3 (from a man and team defense perspective).  Offensively, it works better, but it's still not an ideal pairing overall.

2.  I don't want this to be the reason, but it might be.  It would sting to get nothing in return for a player of Pierce's caliber.  That said, waiving Pierce isn't the only way to save money on his deal.  A trade like Pierce for Bledsoe, Butler and Grant Hill would bring the C's much closer to being under the tax.

1) Yes, I know you didn't say that - that's just one of the narratives that is going around.

Actually, if there is any defensive negative (to having them both on the floor), it was washed out by the offensive benefit.

I think that in practice, they both just slid as appropriate from SG - SF - PF to get the best match ups.

[TheReaLPuba]

I think the writing is on the wall here, and I think it sucks.

Agreed.

Knowing DA's history and mentality I think he's going to let Pierce walk.

[D.o.s.]

There's definitely a continuum of player identity at work here. I'd say that Pierce is going to fall much closer to the Gary Payton end of the spectrum--someone who is definitely and exclusively considered an affiliate with one franchise (in Payton's case, the Sonics), even though he ended up playing for the Bucks, the Lakers, us, and the Heat.


In a perfect world [where Pierce walks], I'd love to see him win another ring as a sixth man in a Bill Walton-type role.