Paul Pierce will forego his Wizards option; (Updated) Signs with the Clippers

[nate33]

I wonder if not guaranteeing Pierce's second year was a tactical mistake -- a huge one, actually.

The main argument against it was that it could stand in the way of getting Durant. But, worst case scenario, it would have meant that you'd have to decline the option on Humphries.

I'm content with the decision. I really don't think Pierce is going to be all that effective going forward. His influence in the locker room will be missed, but in general, there are diminishing returns on that sort of thing. The other players have already heard pretty much everything Pierce has to say.

I honestly think that Durant would rather have a legit 20-25 mpg PF like Humphries as a teammate instead of a 39-year-old Pierce vying for minutes as our fourth SF.

[fishercob]

I wonder if not guaranteeing Pierce's second year was a tactical mistake -- a huge one, actually.

The main argument against it was that it could stand in the way of getting Durant. But, worst case scenario, it would have meant that you'd have to decline the option on Humphries.

I'm content with the decision. I really don't think Pierce is going to be all that effective going forward. His influence in the locker room will be missed, but in general, there are diminishing returns on that sort of thing. The other players have already heard pretty much everything Pierce has to say.

I honestly think that Durant would rather have a legit 20-25 mpg PF like Humphries as a teammate instead of a 39-year-old Pierce vying for minutes as our fourth SF.

I take your point about Pierce's age and generally agree that it's generally better to get rid of a player too early as opposed to too late.

But I don't think the Wizards will benefit in the short term from having Pierce off the team next year -- certainly not with Dudley hurt. And I'm not talking about leadership; I'm talking about production. Pierce was third in win shares, 2nd in WS/48, 3rd in BPM and VORP last season. He was a good player and a critical one to the Wizards mediocre-to-decent regular season.

Now maybe he's due for a drop-off in production this year, but it would have to be massive for him to not have been helpful and important to the Wizards, sad as that may be. And given the Wizards ambitions for 2016, I think letting him go now could come back to bite him -- both based on his production and who he is int he locker room and pitch room.

The Wizards need a big collective step forward from the Core Four this year. Gortat has to be remain steady, and the WizKid Trio all need to get appreciably better. Absent that, it's going to be a long season.

[Rafael122]

I wonder if not guaranteeing Pierce's second year was a tactical mistake -- a huge one, actually.

The main argument against it was that it could stand in the way of getting Durant. But, worst case scenario, it would have meant that you'd have to decline the option on Humphries.

I'm content with the decision. I really don't think Pierce is going to be all that effective going forward. His influence in the locker room will be missed, but in general, there are diminishing returns on that sort of thing. The other players have already heard pretty much everything Pierce has to say.

I honestly think that Durant would rather have a legit 20-25 mpg PF like Humphries as a teammate instead of a 39-year-old Pierce vying for minutes as our fourth SF.

Pierce said this was going to be the last season, so why it would bother him that he didn't have the 2nd year on his offer is beyond me. Why does it matter if you're retiring?

[LyricalRico]

New CBS article about how losing Pierce impacts the Wizards:

How much does losing Paul Pierce hurt? The Truth hurts. I mean, not having the Truth hurts. Something like that. Anyway, Paul Pierce taking his talents to California is not good for the Wizards. Pierce took an upstart squad that was searching for a contender's identity last year and gave them the veteran confidence they needed. It was Pierce that gave the Wizards the edge that pushed them to sweep the Raptors without mercy, and he was the one hitting key late-game shots for Washington.

That said, Pierce's contributions were more about perception than reality. Pierce played in 73 games last season, but only for about 26 minutes per game, averaging 12 points on nine shots per contest. That didn't jump all that much in the playoffs. Pierce played 29 minutes per game vs. the Raptors, averaging 15.5 points per game, and playing 31 minutes per game vs. the Hawks at 14 points per game. He was great, but it wasn't like he was carrying the team. He was just pushing a team that was already there over the top.

In the end, the Wizards wound up in the exact same position they were in the year before when they upset a higher seed (Bulls in 2014, Raptors in 2015) before losing to the No. 1 overall seed (the Pacers in 2014, Hawks in 2015), an Atlanta team they legitimately felt they were better than. The Wizards didn't actually make any progress last season; they just felt more dangerous with Pierce.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25273805/nba-offseason-report-the-missing-truth-about-the-wizards

[Higga]

We needed Pierce last year, but I have a feeling if we kept him this year he would have been a major liability. Now its time for Wall/Beal to step up and be the leaders, use what Pierce taught them and move forward.

[Dat2U]

Pierce at SF was becoming a liability as the season wore on. Pierce at PF is still very solid as long as he can handle minutes.

What's funny is that Wittman was so adamant on saving Pierce he basically got no minutes at the 4 during the regular season. The year before with the Nets, he spent the entire 2nd half of the season starting at the 4.

If the Clips plan to exclusively use Pierce at the 3, they'll likely end up regretting letting Matt Barnes go. Pierce can't play too many minutes at SF anymore.