Paul Pierce opt out clause

[Jimmy103]

With Ray Allen's expiring and Pierce with an opt out the Celtics could be $15 million or so under the cap. Do the Celtics still maintain Bird Rights with Pierce if he does opt out?

[Three34]

Yes

[loserX]

But Pierce will still have a cap hold, I believe. Therefore the Celtics, while "under the cap", won't actually have that capspace unless they renounce him, thus forfeiting his Bird rights. It's one or the other.

(My statements, if untrue, should be corrected by someone smarter than I. Which doesn't really rule anyone out.)

[Dunkenstein]

I'll start by assuming that Rasheed Wallace does retire and his salary comes off the Celtics books. Then after renouncing Pierce, Allen and every other non-contract player on their current team, then adding the cap hold for first round pick Avery Bradley plus six roster charges, the Celtics would have in the neighborhood of $17-18 million in cap space, as Bluewhale correctly points out below.

edited because I forgot about Rasheed.

[Bluewhale]

Assume Celtics renounce Pierce and Ray Allen.

If Wallace retired and leave the money of the next two season on the table, I believe Celtics is about 17-18M under CAP after adding first round pick Avery Bradley plus six roster charges

[FGump]

If Wallace retired and leave the money of the next two season on the table...

I have no proof, just a guess based on observations of the past.

But Sheed could be retiring while still getting full or partial pay as a supposed gesture of good will from the team, in which case there won't be any cap reduction coming. It's rarer for a player to walk away from money, than it is for a team to keep paying the player when these "premature retirements" occur. And don't be swayed by the supposed angst over whether he'll retire, the expressions that they hope he won't, all being a poorly acted charade.

Reason is, some late-career deals are signed where a one-year deal is written as several years, for cap purposes. Then the player retires before the deal ends, and the team "generously" decides to keep paying him for his contributions, or somesuch. The player can't enforce the pay for the extra years, but agents all know the drill and would keep score if the unwritten gets ignored. And it's not uncommon. In fact, it was the knowledge and expectation of this kind of deal that motivated the over-36 accounting on contracts in the first place.

[Bluewhale]

I agree all FGump said. It is possible that Celtics keep paying Wallace because this is the wink-wink agreement between the two side. Celtics pay Wallace 18 Million over 3 years for his one-year service.

So far we don't have any further information other than that Wallace wants to retire and a report claimed Wallace leave the money on the table. (The report could be wrong...)

(Actually, the player can enforce the pay for the extra years, just stay with the team and play lazy, he will receive the pay check as scheduled.)

For reference. CBA 101: Some Q&A from Larry Coon
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=16636

[arenas809]

What's the deal with Pierce's "mutual option" in his new contract?

[So Cal Blazer Fan]

What's the deal with Pierce's "mutual option" in his new contract?

I don't have any direct knowledge, but a guess would be that the final year is both a player option and is not guaranteed (or is only partially guaranteed).

[Three34]

Antoine Walker had such a deal in the final two years of his deal. He had an ETO for them, and they were also unguaranteed.