RealGM

Up until today I thought I had all of the ducks in a row. Ray Allen a free agent in 2010. Paul Pierce 2011, and Kevin Garnett in 2012. That's the way Hoophype.com lists it, and it does not list Pierce's 2011 as a player option. Today on ESPN Pierce was listed with Ray Allen, LeBron, Wade, etc. as being available in 2010. Does anybody know if Pierce has a player option?

According to the Sham he has an early termination option (basically a player option).

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

floyd wrote:According to the Sham he has an early termination option (basically a player option).

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Thanks for the heads up and website. Since the Celtics own Pierce's Larry Bird rights the whole thing could get very interesting. Assuming this website is accurate (and ESPN) as opposed to HoopsHype the Celtics could work an Elton Brand situation like the Clippers had, but with better results. Imagine signing a big name free-agent and then signing Pierce back. Remember what LeBron said, which was reiterated by David Aldridge on ESPN - that LeBron wants to play for a championshp caliber team and is not concerned about the endorsements. Gallanari and Eddy Curry.....or Pierce Garnett....and Allen. A long ways away. At least the Celtics have basketball about their own accomplishments on the backpage.....take a look at the NY papers.

Pierce won't exercise that... Which other team is going to sign him as a free agent with a starting year at $21.5M at age thirty-two? My guess is a contract extension is forthcoming after this season.

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Pierce won't exercise that... Which other team is going to sign him as a free agent with a starting year at $21.5M at age thirty-two? My guess is a contract extension is forthcoming after this season.

The only way Pierce exercises that option is if the team can convince him they need to free the money up to sign a top tier FA in 2010 and that there is a significant chance that they'll be able to do so. If Pierce agrees they'll also have to have some kind of agreement in place where they re-sign him to a deal that overcompensates him (either in length or avg. per yr) in order to make up for losing out on the big pay day he was set to receive.

Given the uncertainty of the team being able to lure a big time FA I doubt they get Pierce to agree to opt out. 2011 is the year for us in terms of signing a big name if any are out there.

The thing is: I don't think Pierce wants to play that many more years. I recall reading about Pierce having a desire or he's open to the idea of playing overseas when his time in the NBA is up in his mind. I'd assumed Pierce meant that he could do so while he's still a "good player" like in his mid to late thirties. Why bother in your forties?

And in order to attract a significant free agent, you've to consider the distinct possibility that this free agent could be replacing (Ray) Allen. It's hard for me to see Ainge signing he and Garnett to a contract extension for X years and Ray as well. Someone if not all three would've to take a lot less. Probably in the single digits annually. Fans will throw out Joe Johnson, but Johnson won't come aboard with Ray still in place when he can remain the top dog in Atlanta or for other teams.

I just heard Wyc on WAAF say they are working on extending Pierce...

nasbahceltic wrote:

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Pierce won't exercise that... Which other team is going to sign him as a free agent with a starting year at $21.5M at age thirty-two? My guess is a contract extension is forthcoming after this season.

The only way Pierce exercises that option is if the team can convince him they need to free the money up to sign a top tier FA in 2010 and that there is a significant chance that they'll be able to do so. If Pierce agrees they'll also have to have some kind of agreement in place where they re-sign him to a deal that overcompensates him (either in length or avg. per yr) in order to make up for losing out on the big pay day he was set to receive.

Given the uncertainty of the team being able to lure a big time FA I doubt they get Pierce to agree to opt out. 2011 is the year for us in terms of signing a big name if any are out there.

I don't think compensating Pierce would be the issue. Pierce would be opting out of a one-year $21 million contract. I think that they would be looking at resigning him to something like 3 years $50 million AFTER they signed a big name free agent in a handshake deal. It would be similar to KG signing his contract for less than he was making at Minnesota. The idea would be to totally maximize the time left with KG, Pierce and possibly Allen.
They had Wyc Grousbeck on a Celtics pre-game show and the subject of LeBron James came up in regards to him becoming a Knick. He made a comment like "why would LeBron want to go to a team where the cupboard was bare?" I don't think he made that comment on behalf of other teams that have good players in place for the good players to go to Believe me, the Celtics will somehow be involved in 2010. I'm not sure how or who, but I'm sure the plan is to have a top notch player come aboard and prolong the careers of the Celtic stars.

celtxman wrote:

floyd wrote:According to the Sham he has an early termination option (basically a player option).

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Thanks for the heads up and website. Since the Celtics own Pierce's Larry Bird rights the whole thing could get very interesting. Assuming this website is accurate (and ESPN) as opposed to HoopsHype the Celtics could work an Elton Brand situation like the Clippers had, but with better results. Imagine signing a big name free-agent and then signing Pierce back. Remember what LeBron said, which was reiterated by David Aldridge on ESPN - that LeBron wants to play for a championshp caliber team and is not concerned about the endorsements. Gallanari and Eddy Curry.....or Pierce Garnett....and Allen. A long ways away. At least the Celtics have basketball about their own accomplishments on the backpage.....take a look at the NY papers.

This could all be VERY interesting...

I looked up the salary cap for the past 3 seasons and projected it out over the next 2 seasons

2006-07 53.14
2007-08 55.63
2008-09 58.68
2009-10 61.45
2010-11 64.23

IF it is possible for Pierce to opt out of his contract, allowing us to have a cap figure of $28,925,451 for the summer of 2010 (using a qualifying offer on Rondo and assuming the team picks up both Giddens and Walker's options), which would land them $35.3 million UNDER the salary cap. If LeBron's championship talk is legitimate, what possible scenario could be better than splitting the $35.3 million with Amare Stoudemire, and making a run with Rondo-Pierce-LeBron-KG-Amare.

Is this at all feasible or just a pipe dream?

Jimmy103 wrote:IF it is possible for Pierce to opt out of his contract, allowing us to have a cap figure of $28,925,451 for the summer of 2010 (using a qualifying offer on Rondo and assuming the team picks up both Giddens and Walker's options), which would land them $35.3 million UNDER the salary cap. If LeBron's championship talk is legitimate, what possible scenario could be better than splitting the $35.3 million with Amare Stoudemire, and making a run with Rondo-Pierce-LeBron-KG-Amare.

Is this at all feasible or just a pipe dream?

Who knows. I'd take Bosh over Amare if that was possible (if Bosh opts out), and I'd settle for DWade (if he opts out) if we couldn't land Lebron.

Perhaps PP has nothing to lose by opting out if he has agreement in principal that the C's will test their options and discuss matters with him before doing anything that would prevent our ability to give him a large enough salary in '10-11 - I would consider this if I was DA. I mean, he could opt out, and hypothetically we would still be able to sign him to a one year 21 million dollar contract if nothing worked out. Am I missing something there?

Now, with so many player options before '10-11, its possible that '11-12 ends up as a just as big offseason, if not bigger. PP is off the books by then as is, but Rondo will presumably be signed to a large contract by then which would cut into our capspace (although, looking into the rules, Rondo's rights will count for about $8 mil relative to the cap pre '10-11 as is, or higher if he signs a higher offer sheet with another team, perhaps we should extend him sooner rather that wait?)

It should be very interesting, anyway. With so many teams clearing capspace for 2010 it seems, I am almost thinking its not even worth trying to comepte with every one, but if we continue to maintain our level of play we'll be a preferred team for a marquee FA as long as we have the capspace.

celtxman wrote:It would be similar to KG signing his contract for less than he was making at Minnesota.

I don't think you can say it's less per se considering I do recall distinctively that Garnett had a trade kicker in his original contract that he didn't waive prior to being traded to Boston.

Even if Pierce should opt out of the final year of $21.5M for 2010-2011. Garnett will make $21.2M in 2011-2012, according to Hoopshype. So, Garnett didn't sign an extension paying him that much less since it could've been lesser in the last two years of the three-year extension if not for the increase from his trade kicker. My understanding is: Garnett agreed to give up his option to terminate the $24.7M for this season in exchange to keep most of his trade kicker bonus.

Among the details that held up completion were discussions between Garnett's camp and the Celtics about the contract extension and the nearly $5 million of a $6.75 million trade kicker salary-cap rules would forced Garnett to waive if the Celtics don't add any other players to the five already in the deal. But word began to spread Monday night that the Celtics had cleared those hurdles with Garnett and secured the long-term reassurance they are seeking from the 10-time All-Star.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2954127

League sources said that the reworking of Garnett's contract could still be a sticking point. Among the issues still to negotiate are the player option worth $24 million that Garnett holds for the 2008-09 season as well as a 15 percent trade kicker which must be paid in real cash at the time of the deal.

According to multiple league sources, Garnett must agree to waive a portion of the trade kicker worth approximately $6.75 million. If Garnett agrees to that contingency, then he would have some additional leverage as the Celtics attempt to restructure his current contract.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... ls_on.html

Garnett, the league's highest-paid player, has two more years on his contract and will earn $22 million this season. A 15 percent trade kicker worth $6.75 million over the next two seasons will be added to the deal. The Boston Herald reported that Garnett, who waived an option to terminate his contract in 2008, already had agreed in principle to terms on a contract extension with the Celtics.

Garnett pioneered the modern-era, high school-to-the-NBA phenomenon in 1995, when the Timberwolves selected him fifth overall from Farragut Career Academy in Illinois. Two years later, Garnett signed a then-record, six-year, $126 million pact with Minnesota that proved to be a financial blessing and professional curse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01168.html

If Pierce opts out, he still has a cap hold, so we cannot sign some big FA, then resign PP unless it is only for the MLE.

canman1971 wrote:If Pierce opts out, he still has a cap hold, so we cannot sign some big FA, then resign PP unless it is only for the MLE.

If, hypothetically, we are 30 mil under the cap, we can sign another FA to a salary beginning at 15 mil per year, and then sign PP to a contract starting at 15 mil per year. No?

The other thing to note is, from what I gather reading the Larry Coon FAQ, if we were to renounce PP's rights, he could sign a one year deal with us for the MLE and we would then regain his bird rights the following offseason and would be able to go above the cap to resign him whatever deal we wanted to give him. Apparently the requirement is three years without being "waived" or switching teams as a FA, not three years on the same salary. Renouncement only provides for a one year delay.

Not that I expect it to happen, but if we were able to sign, say, Chris Bosh and DWade, or Lebron and somebody(ies) else, I'm sure PP might be willing to work with us.

theref23: I am 99% sure that renouncing a player counts the same as waiving them for Bird status. Also, if Pierce ever did sign for one year at short dollars and then re-sign (say) a 3 year $60 million extension then the league would have a fit. Definitely not worth the risk of another Joe Smith scenario...

I love heinsohn wrote:theref23: I am 99% sure that renouncing a player counts the same as waiving them for Bird status. Also, if Pierce ever did sign for one year at short dollars and then re-sign (say) a 3 year $60 million extension then the league would have a fit. Definitely not worth the risk of another Joe Smith scenario...

Well, for the record, I'm going off of this...

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q25

Theoretically, a player with Bird rights can be traded at the trade deadline right before becoming a free agent and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. There is no specific tenure requirement with one team. The only rule is that the player can't have been waived or changed teams as a free agent for three seasons. However, if a team renounces a player (see question number 33), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him for one year.

For example, if a team renounces their Larry Bird rights to a player, then re-signs that player to a one-year contract using cap room, then the player is once again a Larry Bird free agent the following summer.

canman1971 wrote:If Pierce opts out, he still has a cap hold, so we cannot sign some big FA, then resign PP unless it is only for the MLE.

I'm not denying this is true, but why did the Clippers have the ability to sign Baron Davis first and afterward still be able to offer the most money to Elton Brand? I'm just wondering why these are different situations.