Cassell's Quandary

by Jeff Clark on Jan 31, 2008 5:19 AM EST in Boston Celtics News & Links

Cassell didn't make big money early in his career, so it would be hard to walk away from a contract paying $6,150,000. Also keep in mind, as cheap as the Clippers are, they would try to squeeze as much money as possible out of Cassell especially now that he's their starting point guard looking at an opportunity to make a break for utopia. A source told the Boston Globe that the Clippers would be interested in a buyout if Cassell would give up major money.
So basically it comes to this: what's more important to Cassell, playing for a potential championship or getting paid?
The answer to that question will likely determine whether he will be reunited with Garnett.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not counting this season, Cassell has earned $56,665,000 in NBA salary, plus whatever endorsements, etc., he has earned. That figure also doesn’t include the fairly substantial playoff bonuses Cassell has earned, or his per diem. All told, Cassell has probably banked right around $70 million, not including this season.

This season, he’s scheduled to earn $6,150,000. He’s already been paid more than half of that, meaning the Clippers are on the hook for, say, $2.5 million for the rest of the season. Even if the Clippers want the entirety of that amount back, I don’t think Cassell’s kids are going to be starving. The two sides will no doubt try to each get the best deal possible, but if this is really about money, it should get done.

by Roy_Hobbs on Jan 31, 2008 6:58 AM EST reply actions

Can’t we make up the money he loses? Like he would only be giving up a couple of million right? At the most? The season is half over. What is the most we could pay him?

I think he is coming here. I don’t think we would have let Damon … go that easily.

by rickyfan3.0... on Jan 31, 2008 7:06 AM EST reply actions

Isn’t it “quandary”?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quandary

by Big_Easy on Jan 31, 2008 7:39 AM EST reply actions

roy hobbs makes a very good point. from his perspective sam looks like a do for us and him. at his age i would hope a shot at the glory would count for something. i like his size and smarts and his time would go down which would protect his old body and maybe give him more time in the bigs and consequently more $. if he has any needs to be regenerative he could be a great teacher for rondo.

by nazzbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:40 AM EST reply actions

Good background work Roy. He’s also likely to stay in the NBA as a coach so he’ll have quite a few more paydays a comin’

This is also his largest contract (per annum wise) of his career. And Sam Cassell has always been peeved at how underpaid he has been – and rightly so. It’s criminal how long he’s gone earning so little money! (It’s all relative people!)

I doubt it’s much of an issue if at all.

by Who on Jan 31, 2008 7:46 AM EST reply actions

2 Things:

1. Money is always an issue for these guys. It has nothing to do with feeding his kids. It’s the reason corporate CEOs leave one job at $25 mil a year to make $27 mil somewhere else. Cassell will fight for every dime he’s due. It’s just the way it is.

2. He’s already won two rings. It’s not like he needs this one last shot at glory like other vets. He’s been there and done that. Now is he going to uproot his family in the middle of the year, move from sunny L.A. to Boston, just to get one more ring of which he already has two? Maybe. But, it’s not in the bag.

by migit on Jan 31, 2008 7:48 AM EST reply actions

Sam also says he’s playing this season and the next before retiring.

So how much of a rush is he in? He already has two rings. He’d loves to compete but he still has next season to play out. Plus the Clippers have every shot to be a contender come next season.

by Who on Jan 31, 2008 7:49 AM EST reply actions

come on, KG, give your old friend sammy and tell him how great Boston is.

by screwedupmaniac on Jan 31, 2008 8:24 AM EST reply actions

i mean, give your old friend sammy a call…

by screwedupmaniac on Jan 31, 2008 8:24 AM EST reply actions

What Roy Hobbs said.

by mcpu40 on Jan 31, 2008 8:26 AM EST reply actions

thanks Big Easy, grammar was never a strong point for me

by Jeff Clark on Jan 31, 2008 8:29 AM EST reply actions

nobody gives up 2.5 at age 38….he’s probably spent the 56…lol…wink-wink,opt out and we’ll resign next year for 5/6 mil and makeup the loss…????…money talks

by Motown on Jan 31, 2008 8:37 AM EST reply actions

when you’re where we are it’s “GO TIME”. We may not be in this position next year so Wyc and Co, having already come this far, should do whatever it takes to add the final piece. There is a downside to this though ( besides salary tax out the wazoo) which is disrupting team chemistry. what happens to Eddie House? Eddie stands to lose minutes along with ray allen and tony . Our guards looked great against Miami but that was miami. Cassell would give a bigger guards to go against the claderons and billups of the world. I think it would be a great move if we could pull it off

by Red2 on Jan 31, 2008 9:00 AM EST reply actions

Maybe KG should buy him a suit.

by Fox40Kid on Jan 31, 2008 9:16 AM EST reply actions

Nice comment Migit. I’m more of your mind set on this. Cassell is a long shot.

by The Walker Wiggle on Jan 31, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions

Is it possible that Danny thinks that any move we make might make us worse? I know that the team has been vulnerable lately but it is mainly due to non-serious injuries and a lull than anything else. When things were clicking, which they should be again come playoff time, they were virtually unbeatable.

by GreenBalls on Jan 31, 2008 9:42 AM EST reply actions

The absolute most we could offer Cassell is a pro-rated $1.83 million (using our bi-annual exception), meaning that he’d see about $732,000 from us (assuming there’s roughly 40% of the season left when he signs). If we did use that exception, we could also offer him one additional year, at around $1.98 million.

More likely, he’s looking at a pro-rated offer of the minimum, which for players of Cassell’s service time is $1,219,590. In terms of actual dollars, he’d earn roughly $488,000 from us.

by Roy_Hobbs on Jan 31, 2008 9:50 AM EST reply actions

Sam would be an excellent fit with the Celtics for this year and next year.

by scndtony on Jan 31, 2008 10:40 AM EST reply actions

Roy does the contract offer have to be pro-rated? Can we not just give him the whole sum?

Obviously C’s ownership and management would want it to be pro-rated and would likely offer that. But do they not have a choice? I thought they the choice.

by Who on Jan 31, 2008 10:50 AM EST reply actions

Good research Roy He is obviously just trying to feed his kids. ;D If we really want him (and I don’t) then just buy him a gold mystical ring like from the movie Lord of The Rings and tell Gollum Cassell that if he comes to Boston he gets to keep “Precious” ;D

by Master Po on Jan 31, 2008 11:46 AM EST reply actions

Sam will not finish the year with the Clippers.it is that simple. If he has to spend $1.5 million to buy his freedom, so be it. He did win two championships early in his career, but that was so long ago that it really is ancient history.

Cassell to the Celtics has been a fait accompli since the beginning of the season, when Brand’s injury took the Clips out of the playoff hunt. With his connections to both KG and Ray Allem, Sam is probably salivating at the chance to QB this team to a title.

Why wouldn’t Sterling buy out Cassell at the trade deadline? The team will be angling for a better lottery pick by then, and who better to lead them to a bunch of losses than Brevin Knight, the losingest active NBA player? Let’s see: No sulking Cassell, an extra $1.5m, and a better lottery pick in a draft with a handful of high flying potential superstars, or a sulking Cassell, a few more wins, and worse draft positioning. No brainer for Sterling.

by TripleOT on Jan 31, 2008 11:58 AM EST reply actions

You are applying logic Triple to the cheapest owner in the NBA in which logic has not been often applied.

by Master Po on Jan 31, 2008 12:12 PM EST reply actions

Roy does the contract offer have to be pro-rated? Can we not just give him the whole sum? [/quote]

I am not 100% sure on the bi-annual exception, but I am almost positive that it has to be pro-rated. I know the minimum has to be:

[quote][The minimum salary exception] begins to reduce in value after the first day of the season. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then this exception reduces in value by 1/180 of its initial value each day.[/quote]

Again, I’m almost certain that all the standard exceptions work this way, but I’m not 100% positive.

EDIT:

Okay, I was wrong on how the bi-annual is pro-rated. It is indeed pro-rated, but only after January 10:

[quote]Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.

So, it looks like if we signed Cassell with the bi-annual exception at the end of February, he’d get a little over 2/3 of the exception, meaning around $1.2 million.

by Roy_Hobbs on Jan 31, 2008 4:17 PM EST reply actions