Pierce will definitely enter free agency next year, no?

Captain_Caveman · Post #1 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:21 pm

From another thread, but such a major consideration that it deserves its own.

At the start of next season, Pierce will be 33 years old. It will in all likelihood be his last chance at a decent contract. Should he exercise his player option for next year, he will be trying to get that last deal at the age of 34 years old. Personally, I think there would be a fairly major difference in the type of deals he could command in either scenario.

Next summer, I think he could get 3 years, $45m. If he waits until the following summer, he may only be looking at a 3-year, $20m MLE a la Sheed.

While he would certainly not be able to get the same $21m in the first year of his deal that his player option would give him, it is all about the guaranteed money. It would be way less risky for him to opt out and take a guaranteed $45m than it would be for him to exercise that player option for $21m and hope that $24m would still be on the table in a year.

Sounds counter-intuitive, but it happens ALL the time. Baron Davis just one example off the top of my head of a guy who "gave up" $5m of guaranteed money in order to sign a longer and bigger contract.

I bring it up because (a) it is potentially some savings for us next summer, and (b) while you don't hear his name mentioned a lot in the FA Class of 2010, other teams and their cap room will probably factor into this.

JSABleedsGreen · Post #2 » by **JSABleedsGreen** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:26 pm

doubtful.....who leaves 21+ on the table......he might not get as much as he thinks......not at age 33. no one will want to sign him 3 to 4 at 15+ per year.....so why not get 21 this year... then sign 3+ years at 12 million.

Celts17Pride · Post #3 » by **Celts17Pride** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:30 pm

I think the most Celtics fans could expect is Pierce gives up 1 year at $21 mill and signs an extension something like below:

next season $16.00 mill
2011-2012 ($12.00 mill + $2.0 mill) = $14.0 mill
2012-2013 ($12.00 mill + $1.5 mill) = $13.5 mill
2012-2014 ($12.00 mill + $1.5 mill) = $13.5 mill

That would give the Celtics an extra $5.0 mill of cap room next season and give Pierce 4 years $57 million.

He probably would want a little more.

This is just another way of saying the same thing as JSABleedsGreen.

Post #4 » by **sully00** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:38 pm

I would be really surprised if Pierce does not get an extension in place of that player option similar to what Garnett got when he came to Boston which was 16,18, 21. My guess is maybe Paul goes 4 years in that 16 mil range. It isn't even a question of value in that situation you have all this money tied in to a Championship team. I don't want to make it sound like one guy is bigger than the team but without Pierce we go from savy veteran squad to old real fast.

Captain_Caveman · Post #5 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:41 pm

Yeah, I missed those threads, I guess. But I definitely agree with the basic dynamics.

I don't think he will command $60m at any point, whether it is opting out next summer or playing out his contract and trying to get $40m in 2011.

But if he is able to command a deal of $45m guaranteed next summer, which he very likely can, he definitely opts out, regardless IMO of how the money breaks down (3 yrs vs 4 rs, frontloaded vs backloaded).

I hadn't heard this mentioned much, but it seems to be a near-certainty to me.

Captain_Caveman · Post #6 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 8:44 pm

Sully, I don't think he's got the juice to command a deal like that at the age of 33.

elrod enchilada · Post #7 » by **elrod enchilada** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 9:31 pm

I doubt he will enter free agency. But he will probably sign an extension which he will be eligible to do, as I understand the CBA, in the summer of 2010 that will go into effect in 2011. I suspect Paul will sign a three-year extension in the $10 million per year range.

celticfan42487 · Post #8 » by **celticfan42487** » Mon Nov 2, 2009 9:59 pm

I don't see why he would leave 21 mil on the table. Garnnet went down to 16 after he hit his payday of 24 mil a year.

Pierce will take his 21. Look at this team after 2 years. and see if Ray can still walk.

Captain_Caveman · Post #9 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 12:00 am

Elrod raises a good point, but the breakdown of the money is less important than the amount of it.

He is saying 4 years, $50m.

That can happen whether or not it is 20-10-10-10, 11-12-13-14 or 15-13-12-10.

Post #10 » by **Spin Move** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 12:06 am

Captain_Caveman wrote:Elrod raises a good point, but the breakdown of the money is less important than the amount of it.

He is saying 4 years, $50m.

That can happen whether or not it is 20-10-10-10, 11-12-13-14 or 15-13-12-10.

No, he is going to play out his current contract and he will likley be relegated to mid level money after that, or he might see the team is rebuilding at that point and want to retire but there is no way he leaves 21 million on the table, no way.

GuyClinch · Post #11 » by **GuyClinch** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 12:19 am

^^^ Your not leaving money on the table if you re-up at say 4 years 50 million per. Its big pay cut one year but you get an extra 25 million of guaranteed money.

Captain_Caveman · Post #12 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 12:41 am

Spin, he actually makes more money in that scenario than in yours.

And it is 100% guaranteed in 2010, rather than 50% guaranteed in 2010 with the hope of getting the other 50% a year later, when you are 34 years old.

crm0922 · Post #13 » by **crm0922** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 12:56 am

There is also a probability (heaven forbid) that he sustains an injury that would reduce his ability to sign for any real money ever again. If he's smart he locks himself in through retirement ASAP for a reasonable amount that doesn't totally prevent the team from hiring enough talent to compete...

C

Captain_Caveman · Post #14 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 1:01 am

Agreed, crm.

There is also the issue that this guy has taken some serious physical abuse during his career. I know he's built like a truck, but he doesn't seem to take *great* care of himself, and there is every probability that he is just suddenly gonna go over the cliff at some point, a la Iverson or NFL RBs like Shaun Alexander or LaDanian Tomlinson.

ARB729 · Post #15 » by **ARB729** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 1:08 am

if it comes down to it, pierce will probably take a small discount to stay and we will probably give him all we can to make him stay , regardless, #34 is the next to the rafters

Post #16 » by **Spin Move** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 2:48 am

Captain_Caveman wrote:Spin, he actually makes more money in that scenario than in yours.

And it is 100% guaranteed in 2010, rather than 50% guaranteed in 2010 with the hope of getting the other 50% a year later, when you are 34 years old.

I wouldnt want to extend him for more then a year, at big money, he is already slower then he was 2 years ago, he is my favorite player in the NBA but adding years at this time would be foolhardy, he cant make nearly as much on the open market, he wont opt out we shouldnt be offering him more then the midlevel after this contract is up since no one else is going to either.

SichtingLives · Post #17 » by **SichtingLives** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 3:12 am

I think Paul looks a whole lot quicker and more nimble in these first 4 games than he has in years. Not that I expect that to keep up all year, but talk of his aging is still premature. His shooting touch has also improved in the last three years. Barring injuries, I think people are expecting Paul to drop off sooner than he's going to.

Captain_Caveman · Post #18 » by **Captain_Caveman** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 4:10 am

Spin, you risk losing him for nothing in that scenario.

I would prefer to have him opt out and resign at 3 years, $45m myself.

More money for him, more flexibility for us next summer, and even in the worst case scenario, he would be a $15m expiring contract only two years later.

bendyone · Post #19 » by **bendyone** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 4:17 am

DunkOnFace wrote:I think Paul looks a whole lot quicker and more nimble in these first 4 games than he has in years. Not that I expect that to keep up all year, but talk of his aging is still premature. His shooting touch has also improved in the last three years. Barring injuries, I think people are expecting Paul to drop off sooner than he's going to.

Agree with the 'quicker' comment....I have seen him slam more in preseason and the first 4 games, than I have noted in years....he looks primed this year.....could he be a league MVP?? Prolly not....but AS def...and NBA second team...maybe (Melo perhaps)...

Post #20 » by **sully00** » Tue Nov 3, 2009 7:02 pm

celticfan42487 wrote:I don't see why he would leave 21 mil on the table. Garnnet went down to 16 after he hit his payday of 24 mil a year.

Pierce will take his 21. Look at this team after 2 years. and see if Ray can still walk.

That isn't what happened with KG. His salary was increased to 24 mil because of his trade kicker, he then had the same option Pierce holds now and signed a 16, 18, 21 mil extension. He did reduce his number on the front end but he is still going to get his money.

The real question is whether Boston should overpay Paul a bit down the road for a reduced salary now. There is a question to whether or not he could sign a 5 year deal, but if he could do you give Paul 5 years 65 mil? That is what Baron signed for last offseason. Turn that 21.5 into a 13 or lower while your paying the tax. It is a 43.5 mil over 4 years more than they are committed to now. Is he really going to be any cheaper than that in a year?