Can Paul Pierce Rework His Deal?

by Jeff Clark on Oct 15, 2009 10:33 PM EDT in News/Links Comment 24 comments

Marc Stein on TrueHoop takes a look at Paul Pierce's recent statements that he'd be willing to "to re-work his contract to keep players in Boston." At first he states that the option of signing an extension wouldn't be of much benefit, but then he amends his statement later. Here's the two statements:

Pierce, though, would have two options if he wants to save the Celts some money:
1) The 2008 NBA Finals MVP can sign an extension at any time over the next two seasons that kicks in starting with 2011-12, but league rules say that the first-year salary in a new deal can only be reduced by a maximum of 10.5 percent from the $21.5 million Pierce is owed in 2010-11. That means the starting salary in an extension could only drop to $19.3 million.

UPDATE: My initial info from a cap expert on the first option has since been amended by another cap expert. More drastic reductions in salary are permissible in extensions, as seen recently when Washington's Antawn Jamison went from $16.4 million to $9.9 million in the first year of his Wizards extension in 2008-09 ... and when Pierce's teammate Kevin Garnett went from $24.8 million in the final year of his last Minnesota contract to $16.4 million with Boston last season.

2) Pierce could take the unlikely and rarely seen step of opting out of his contract after this season, leaving next season's $21.5 million on the table and signing a long-term deal at a reduced rate.

Very interesting. So he could take a drastic pay cut in exchange for a few more years on his contract and perhaps paving the way for a free agent player. Is this what Wyc was talking about over the summer when he said there was a way next summer to get under the cap enough to lure a max type player?

Update: In addition to the cold water Roy Hobbes threw on the "sign a max player dream" (via the comments below this post) we have a post from Paul Flannery stating most of the same sobering facts.

First things first. The Celtics already have about $33+ million committed to Kevin Garnett, Kendrick Perkins, Glen Davis and Wallace for 2010-11. Add to that a “cap hold” of $6.3 million for Rondo if he doesn’t sign an extension, and we’re already looking at about $40 million for five players before Pierce even does anything, let alone before the team makes a decision on Allen. The salary cap for this season is set at $57.7 million and there has already been talk that will trend down in 2010-11. (Celtics Blog has a good look at the down and dirty).

In other words, hold off on those LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh dreams.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Pierce's Option

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Paul opt out of his contract next year, become a free agent and sign with the C’s for much less. He wants to retire here. He wants to win. He’s made his money and I don’t thing he’s squandered it. Paul is also interested in the business end of basketball. It’s farfetched and based on ownership staying in place, but part of the deal could be his buying into ownership of the team with his share being the money he gives up in doing the above. Will be interesting.

"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
"Criminally Negligent Officiating"--Tommy Heinsohn

by TrueGreen on Oct 15, 2009 8:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Even if Pierce opts out, we're not going to sign a max free agent. Here's why:

Right now, we have the following salaries guaranteed for next season:

KG: $18,832,044
Rasheed: $6,322,320
Perk: $4,890,208
BBD: $3,250,000 (roughly)

That adds up to $30.4 million. To that, we need to add a $6.3 million “cap hold” for Rajon Rondo. That brings us up to $36.7 million, for five players. There’s an additional roster hold of roughly $450k for each player on the roster below 12, which means we have to add an additional $3.2 million in salary. That brings us up to $39.9 million.

Right now, the salary cap for next season is projected to be between $50.4 million and $53.6. That means that, if Pierce opts out, we’ll have between $10.5 million and $13.7 million to spend on free agents.

Even on the high side, $13.7 million isn’t enough to sign a max free agent, and that’s assuming that we resign Pierce for the minimum and renounce Ray Allen, Marquis Daniels, Eddie House, Bill Walker, J.R. Giddens, and all of our other free agents, as well as renouncing our right to use the MLE next season.

In other words, we don’t have any cap room.

That’s right: even if Pierce takes the minimum, we won’t be able to sign a max guy.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 15, 2009 8:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

what if

we extend Rondo’s and Ray’s contracts (at cap friendly levels in year 1)?

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Oct 15, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even so, we wouldn’t be under the cap… there’s a cap hold to consider, so if Pierce opts out, there’s still a huge amount of “money” working against the cap. The only way you’d have a chance would be by renouncing Pierce, and if you do that you’ve essentially lost him. And even so, I doubt we would be enough under the cap to land a max player. It just isn’t happening.

by BudweiserCeltic on Oct 15, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It still won't work...

Keep in mind that in the above example, Ray counts for nothing against the cap (i.e., it assumes he walks or comes back for the minimum) and Rondo is subject to a $6.3 million hold. There’s no way we’ll do better than either of those deals.

I suppose Rondo could immediately forego free agency and sign the qualifying offer, but that would be ridiculously stupid on his part. If he did that, though, we’d open up about another $4 million. In that case, if Pierce agreed to a minimum contract (i.e., gave up $20 million and his Bird rights) we might be able to sign a max free agent, depending on what happens with the salary cap.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 15, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is the cap on Rondo so high?
Rondo isn’t entitled to that much money is he?

by markgent on Oct 15, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a cap hold...

As a restricted free agent, we’ll carry a “cap hold” of 300% of Rondo’s previous salary (or about $2.1 million). Thus, until Rondo accepts his qualifying offer or signs a contract, he counts $6.3 million against our cap.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 15, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, thanks.

For the record, if we really wanted a max agent we could just dump Rondo and get that full 6.3mil back (minus 450k). Not too much of a point in that though.

by markgent on Oct 15, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you use "dump" and "Rondo" in one line again...

… I’ll send in three restricted free agents that will chew your ears off.

(random, but it should do the trick)

;)

- Dirk 'DaarisDirk' van Boxtel

by Kiorrik on Oct 16, 2009 3:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's got to be...

other ways for us to reconstruct deals and through sign and trades to get a max-free-agent… I don’t see any advantage of why Wyc would lie and say that

by Mike-Dub on Oct 15, 2009 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

" Is this what Wyc was talking about over the summer when he said there was a way next summer to get under the cap enough to lure a max type player?"

No, if anything he’s talking about sign and trades. Or he was simply mistaken.

by BudweiserCeltic on Oct 15, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I doubt Wyc was mistaken...

It’s probably a combination of both and more.

by Mike-Dub on Oct 15, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

Keep in mind that Wyc’s statement came before the signing of Rasheed and BBD, which adds about $9 million to our cap next season.

Wyc’s statement was always off the wall, but now it’s pretty much impossible. A sign-and-trade is pretty much the only shot we’d have, and that’s a long shot (and would probably require us saying goodbye to Ray and Rondo).

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 15, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

This is the one thing I think people keep forgetting (that Wyc said this BEFORE signing Sheed and BBD). There is no way they will be able to sign a max free agent next year without some MAJOR changes. Think about it, Wyc is technically right. COULD they do it? Yes, theoretically. Realistically though the team you see this year is essentially what you’ll be seeing at least the next 2 years without some major changes,

by MrTripleDouble10 on Oct 16, 2009 5:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but

He certainly knew they wanted to re-sign Baby and Wyc was the one saying there was “one guy” out there in free agency they wanted, many speculated he was talking about Sheed at the time, and in the end, that was right. So it is not as if they had no idea of this past summer’s goals. You think he was only speaking as if they let Baby walk and did not sign anyone else using the MLE this year? That was never an option, so Baby and Sheed, were accounted for, or at least their money, when he said it.

Now this may not make getting a max guy any more possible, but I think even the most studious fan capologist has to at least allow the possibility that there may be an angle that has not been considered. Unless you are being paid to do this job for the Celtics, one can’t possibly be as informed and claim to know EVERY possible scenario.

by KJ33 on Oct 16, 2009 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to hear that angle...

Wyc’s words were “There is a scenario under which we could do that”, meaning sign a max guy. He’s talking about one scenario. I just don’t think that when saying that, he was accounting for every potential free agent signing the team would make (i.e., Rasheed, BBD).

Again, even if Paul and Ray walk for nothing (or essentially give up their Bird rights and sign minimum deals), we won’t have enough cap space to sign a max guy. If there’s another angle (i.e., dealing KG for an expiring deal would work) I don’t want to see it.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 16, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they preach its about the teams success and money is not a huge factor with them anymore, heres his chance to prove it, we all know kobe in LA doesnt have the loyalty to do that with LA like he could this year

by celtics94 on Oct 15, 2009 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Basically...

Pierce opting out of his deal now wouldn’t provide the Celts with any cap room at all. What it would do, though, is potentially save luxury tax. If Pierce opted out for, say, $15 million next year, he saves the team $6.5 million in salary and $6.5 million in tax. That money could then be used to reinvest in another player (i.e., maybe Danny would sign another player with the MLE, rather than keeping a tighter budget.)

Ultimately, I think Pierce will keep his current deal, and then attempt to sign an extension that kicks in afterward.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Oct 15, 2009 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You know what I just thought... Maybe the max player is going to be Rondo.

by Mike-Dub on Oct 15, 2009 9:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Say Pierce wants to make 50 million over the next 5 years...

He’d have 2 options. He could opt out of his deal completely after this season, and re-sing for 10 million per year for 5 years.

He could take 21 million next year, and take 7.5 million per year for the 4 years after that. Considering that cap space next year is a myth anyway, I’d rather he take deal number two; we compete next year when KG and Wallace are on the books and we have ray’s bird rights, then we’d have KG’s expiring deal, Rondo and Perkins, and Pierce locked up for just 7.5 million after that. 2.5 less per year.

by Fan from VT on Oct 15, 2009 9:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

an oops and an additional thought...

by 7.5 million i meant 7.25 million.

And, even better, PP could take the 21 mill, then sign his 29 million dollar extension in decreasing intervals: 9 mil, 7.75 mil, 6.5 mil, 5.75 mil

by Fan from VT on Oct 15, 2009 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Pierce signs for a lower than market rate deal...

Then I think his number should be retired! That would be pretty awesome.

by funkstarrdeluxe on Oct 16, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

there's got to be a way

To Mike-Dub

I think the only way we can make any significant deals is to use Ray Allen. After the season, we can sign him to any deal we want and then trade him. It would have to be as a sign and trade and Ray would have to agree with it also. I really don’t see that happening but no other screnario makes much sense. We are not going to renounce PP or Rajon and with cap holds and our current salaries we are pretty much stuck.

The other possibility is during the season we have TA and Scal with reasonable size contracts that can be combined to bring in a player that another team might want to dump due to money issues. For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised to see NO try to move David West, expecially if there see themselves not competing for a championship which is probably a given.

Pls don’t throw rocks, this is just an example but NO is losing money and ownership is not happy. They aren’t going to deal Chris Paul so else would give them a cap relief? Sacto is another team that might be willing to dump a player.

There are many teams that are losing money and not a contender that are probably willing to dump salary even for their good talent. I would say NJ, Pho, Sacto, NO, Den, Utah, Wash (once they have their usual Gilbert Injury), Milw, Char, Ind, GS, Memp, and Det. I think Det would like to dump salary to be a player in this year FAs. They know what they did last year is not going to make them much better, and maybe worse.

Again, this is just my opinion, but money is tight and many of these teams have debt to service and revenues are going down not up.

by badax33 on Oct 16, 2009 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs