How Much Does Loyalty Cost?
by Jeff Clark on Jun 30, 2010 8:30 PM EDT
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
Print
Paul Pierce wants to retire a Boston Celtic. The Celtics want Paul Pierce to retire a Boston Celtic. So what's the hitch? As usual, it comes down to money. And in this particular case, it comes down to money and years.
Paul and his agent are looking for financial security. That sounds funny when talking about someone that's earned well over $100 million over his career, but only a special breed of person can leave millions of dollars on the table (yeah, Richard Jefferson is an example). Pierce needs only look as far as his buddy Antoine Walker to see how quickly $100M can disappear when not managed properly.
In the other corner sits Danny Ainge and the ownership group. Nobody is going to be crying poor on their side either, but for them it boils down to cap flexibility in future years. They want to bring the gang back together for another run but not at the expense of the next 3 years of Rondo's prime.
I think both sides can come up with an annual dollar figure that makes sense for both parties, so it really boils down to the years. The Celtics will want to limit the deal to 2 years so it lines up with Kevin Garnett's deal. Pierce will likely want 3 to 4 years. Who will blink?
It seems to me that both sides have limited leverage. Pierce can threaten to go elsewhere but he's already stated time and time again that his legacy is important to him and he'd like to finish up with the team that drafted him. Could he get more money from another team? Maybe. For the most part it would seem that Pierce is more valuable to the Celtics than he would be to any other team, but all it takes is one LeBron-gilted owner to offer the moon. Some are speculating that team could be the Clippers. Los Angeles would be appealing because it is Paul's home town, but still, ...we're talking the Clippers here.
The Celtics could threaten to move on without him, but how are you going to sell that to a coach that just agreed to put his family aside for another year? How are you going to sell that to a fanbase that has tasted greatness and isn't quite ready to return to lotteryland just yet? Besides, what's the plan B? Renounce all the free agents' rights and sign one B-level free agent that you'll have to overpay? You'd also have to fill out the roster with minimum salary guys and undrafted rookies.
So we are back to square one. Paul Pierce and the Celtics need each other, so something is going to get done. It is just a matter of time (and money and years). For point of reference, Manu Ginobili signed a 3 year extension for $39M. When all is said and done, I'd expect Pierce to get something similar.
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i'd settle with with 3 yr/39 mill
thats 13 per
maybe danny can get him down to 12 or 12.5 per ,(just lookin out for the celts here)
all in all i cant be upset at all
When they start talking about money, I metaphorically leave the room.
I won’t be paying this check. So I’m not going to grouse about what anyone asks for, or what anyone refuses to pay.
I actually DO leave the room
The money stuff is so unreal to me. I would have to win the lottery to make in a lifetime what Paul has made in a year. And I live in a state without a lottery.
I love the recruiting, speculation, and excitement of the off-season, but when they start talking money, I can’t deal with it. Somebody have Marissa Tomei wake me in August. . . . Oh for that matter, just have her wake me anytime.
ok but it will likely be her understudy
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
"…traded as many times this summer as a bad hooker’s phone number at a Vegas convention of Proctologists ."
by remembering9ergods on Jun 30, 2010 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Clippers actually perfect fit
I believe the Captain will return, with the recent rumblings we are hearing. But what made me nervous when he opted out was the possible Clippers situation. If you look at it impartially……they have a 1(Baron), a 2(Gordon), a 4(Blake Griffin) and 5(Kaman). They just drafted a young, raw 3 with the 8th pick whose scouting report reads: be patient with him. This is the only way Paul could possibly return home without pissing off Celtics fans by playing for the hated Lakers.
I don’t think it will happen, and I think Paul and Ray will both be in the fold this year, but i think you’re being too dismissive of the possibility of LA. That would not be a bad team, especially if Griffin lives up to his billing,
Clippers
I don’t think Paul necessarily wants to return home. Doesn’t he stil live in Vegas during the off-season? And these are still the Clippers. They are the laughingstock of the league. Their ownership is a joke. No end in sight of being in the shadow of the Lakers. I bet Baron Davis wakes up every day regretting that contract. Davis is also a popular player in the league. Don’t think he hasn’t been telling other All Stars what an awful situation he’s in. The only way the Clips change their fortune soon is for Griffin to become a top 10 player. Then maybe future top tier free agents would take the Clippers seriously.
While I'm not going to completely discount he idea that Paul goes elsewhere (i.e. Clippers)
I think that he’ll end up signing a 3 × 15M contract with possibly some sort of an option for a 4th.
That protects him from a lockout because if he only plays 2 years of it he gets 30M, so that justifies him giving up $21M this year.
I don’t expect the contract to be low enough to have any impact on our current salary cap issues.
He’s past his prime. Let him walk, like he did when he didn’t get the ball with 5 seconds left in game four.
yes let us use one show of frustration
discount 12 years of service
haters keep hatin
"Take it to the hoop, there's a dance involved." - DJ Tommy
by WillyBeamin on Jun 30, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
GREEDY BASTARDS
All of ’em
21 million just aint enuff per year
im sick of the nba and the players of today
no heart – no soul
all about money
f them
Great point!
Let’s keep that money in the owner’s hands instead, where it belongs.
So, what's the problem?
This is a free enterprise, not a socialist society. (whoops, sorry for politalk) A player getting $10 mill instead of $20 mill is making an owner look bad, how? That’s still an unfathomable amount for the common man.
LOL - exact opposite
A player making $10M instead of $20M makes an owner look very smart … and $10M richer.
You may have missed my point up above … try again.
Guess I was overthinking.
So used to reading in irony that I assumed you were being facetious. Sorry. I think we’re agreeing, right?
Absolutely
But why should the owner get it? He didn’t play. He didn’t coach. He didn’t draft players or sign free agents. In many cases, he didn’t even pay to build the arena. He profits off other people’s skills, coaching ability, management acumen, and capital. Sounds like a good gig to me. I agree that owners deserve some profit as a reward for the financial risk they assume. But let’s not kid ourselves — until the economic downturn, owning an NBA franchise was a fantastically profitable enterprise. 2 years of lousy economics, and they want to tear up the agreement and start over. That’s fine — all’s fair in love and capitalism — but I’m not going to cry if a player (who actually, you know, plays) pockets $10M instead of the owner. It’s not like Pierce taking less money means more money in my pocket. Owners almost never slash ticket prices, even if the team goes deep in the playoffs.
Pierce is a phenomenally talented individual, one of the 20 best at his profession in the world (and this is a profession that generates billions of dollars worldwide per year). If he takes less money, that means that the owner, who has no particular skill at basketball besides being rich, makes more money. Again, I don’t see that as any great victory for the common man.
thank you dslack - great points
count me as one of the people who doesn’t care how much the players make – they take what they can get from the owners and sometimes they even do beneficent things with that money (see: Andrew Bogut’s personally financed section of 100 crazy fans, it’s amazing).
You don’t see owners making it easier for me to afford going to an NBA game, and so I haven’t gone to one for about 5 years… it makes no financial sense
by milt palacio's shot on Jul 1, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
But why should the owner get it?
Are you serious?! These players are NOT indentured servants struggling to make ends meet, suffering to feed their families, or unable to care for their extended families & descendants.
Who really gives a rip if the owner didn’t play or coach in the games? That’s NOT a criteria for ownership and never has been. These owners have the money to buy these franchises because they’ve usually made it in some other area of free enterprise. They’re very smart & talented, in their own right, and had the right idea at the right moment. it’s also safe to say that they’ve probably earned their bones by excellence in their professions. If they’ve got the dough, they have every right to buy a team and make it successful. There are a whole lotta other parts of an NBA franchise that the owners have to tend to and pay for, i.e. huge costs in personnel, overhead, marketing, liability, etc… The NBA player has to worry about one thing: Himself. Players have every right to earn as much as they can … but so does an owner, as long as his workers are taken care of honorably. I’d give an owner an extra $5 mill anyday over a player. They’re already making so much friggin’ money that, if responsible about it, they can take care of their next 10 or 20 generations.
What?
Your argument seems to be that because owners were smart (or lucky) enough to have a lot money from some other part of their lives, they also should make money at the expense of players in the basketball part of their lives. I do not follow this at all.
First, let’s get the “owners are super-smart geniuses” idea out of our heads. Some are, some aren’t. Paul “Thanks Dad” Gaston was smart enough to approve the Vin Baker trade before the door hit him in the ass on the way out. James Dolan was smart enough to be born to Charles Dolan. There are also some owners who are very sharp and have made tons of money in some other business arena. That’s fine. I applaud them for that. They absolutely deserve the gobs of money they have made for their super-smart genius ideas — like Paul Allen, and his instrumental role in creating Microsoft.
But why does that mean they deserve gobs of money in the basketball “arena” as well? Again, I do not advocate that they should make no profit. They assume some financial risk, and for that deserve financial reward. But again, how is it a victory for the common man when the guy whose skills actually make a basketball franchise valuable in the first place (the player who is good at basketball) makes less money and the rich guy makes more money?
Finally, the idea that giving money to owners is somehow better for society than giving it to players is absurd. Huge concentrations of money with really rich people means more money being sheltered from taxes overseas, less money being spent, less stimulating the economy, etc. I totally support rich people’s right to make and protect their money any way they can. But don’t pretend that that’s somehow better for the rest of us.
Don't be so thinskinned. It's OK to disagree.
This is what you said:
But why should the owner get it? He didn’t play. He didn’t coach. He didn’t draft players or sign free agents. In many cases, he didn’t even pay to build the arena. He profits off other people’s skills, coaching ability, management acumen, and capital. … I agree that owners deserve some profit as a reward for the financial risk they assume.
What I said, in a nutshell, is that:
A – NBA players are making PLENTY of money for their services.
B – Owners deserve to make a profit, regardless of their skills on the court, because they have much more invested in a franchise than the players do and carry much more of the risk.
Our country’s financial (& political) design is, arguably, the greatest in the history of the world. It’s why everyone else wants to come here. Owning a business, any business, puts the owner into a very dynamic risk / reward position and he must make it work. The players do not take on that risk for the entire organization. If the team folds, the owner would be bankrupt but the player would walk away to yet another multi-million dollar gig somewhere else. They’re getting millions by playing basketball and millions from endorsements. Yes, the “stars” of basketball deserve to be compensated commensurate with their skills – and they are exceptionally – but basketball will go on because of the competition & team geographical followings. Players come & go. I’m a CELTICS fan first, a Paul Pierce fan second. Aren’t you?
They assume some financial risk
Check that: They assume ALL of the financial risk for the franchise.
I’d rather not take the time to research this but but most wealthy ownersrooted in (A) a self-made success story or (B) a family’s self-made success story. If you’ve got issues with that, maybe it’s just your jealousy? And why in the world would they buy the franchise in the first place if they weren’t looking to make money? Answer this on who is more deserving of riches: Someone who is “smart enough to be born to Charles Dolan” or a kid who grows to a height of 6’10"? It goes both ways. Both get blessed and both have to work hard to cultivate that blessing.
… the idea that giving money to owners is somehow better for society than giving it to players is absurd. Huge concentrations of money with really rich people means more money being sheltered from taxes overseas, less money being spent, less stimulating the economy, etc. I totally support rich people’s right to make and protect their money any way they can. But don’t pretend that that’s somehow better for the rest of us.
A – What part of my post is this supposed to be debating? You pulled it out of thin air.
B – Never did I say that it was "somehow better for the rest of us.
C – Owners & Players: They’re ALL rich. Is it the suits & shorts that fooled you?
The real problem with all of this is that the masses will continue to support both the players and the owner in getting obnoxiously rich. It’ll never stop. I’m certainly not going to blame either the player or the owner in the whole scheme of things. They’re just taking good advantage of the system already in place.
The debate is purely about
whether players are ‘over paid’ because they make 20M or whatever, just because even half that (10M) is still a huge amount of money (relative to the common man). Your comment was:
A player getting $10 mill instead of $20 mill is making an owner look bad, how? That’s still an unfathomable amount for the common man
.
My comment and dslack’s are both targeted at the implication that somehow society is better if the ‘overpaid’ athlete is only paid 10M. Because – and this is our point – if the money doesn’t go in the player’s pocket, it goes into the owner’s.
A player ultimately is worth exactly what some owner is willing to pay them.
Not thin-skinned
Not sure why you thought I was. And, of course, disagreement is fine. I also don’t think I was expressing jealousy of anyone.
You asked who’s more deserving, a guy who’s born to a rich guy, or a guy whose genes make him really tall. It’s a good question, and it touches on issues of free will that don’t fit well into blog comments (does anyone truly deserve anything?). Suffice it to say, I think we distinguish between money that a person has because a relative gifted it to him, and money someone has because, through hard work, he honed the body and brain (that he was lucky enough to be born with) into a body/brain that are extraordinary at playing basketball. The latter is far for deserving, by any reasonable definition of the word. The American dream is to be the self-made man, not to be the Charles-Dolan-made man. Of course, no one makes himself, because no one makes his nature or his nurture, but getting riches through hard work and innate talent fits with most people’s notion of what’s appropriate far more than getting riches through a trust fund. (And James Dolan, one of the richest and most profitable owners, has almost zero basketball acumen, having just presided over a decade of complete futility.)
You asked what part of your post I was supposed to be debating. It was this:
I’d give an owner an extra $5 mill anyday over a player. They’re already making so much friggin’ money that, if responsible about it, they can take care of their next 10 or 20 generations.
Perhaps I misunderstood and you were just stating your personal preference, not discussing what is best for society.
In any event, you’re right that the risk goes to the owner. But my point is that it’s not a risky proposition. Over the last 30 years, basketball franchises have been wildly profitable and have increased in value manyfold. There have been very few exceptions to the idea that owning basketball teams makes people much richer than not owning basketball teams does — and I’m talking monetary riches, not counting the ancillary benefits of, well, owning a team, hobnobbing with celebrities, etc. Forget all that extracurricular fun. Owning basketball teams makes people wealthy. Basketball players get rich, but owners get wealthy. There’s a difference, as Chris Rock points out. 2 down years, and the owners will soon install a new CBA to guarantee their future strong profitability, as well. As well they should! But I still don’t see why I should root for Wyc Grousbeck to get money instead of Paul Pierce.
Again, we can agree to disagree.
You’ve taken this MUCH farther w/ MUCH more unrelated content than were my points.
A – The players make a ton of deserved money, due to talent & hard work.
B – The owners make a ton of deserved money, due to investment, risk, & hard work.
At the end of the day, they can both shake hands and say, “This game has made us rich!” BOTH are obscenely wealthy – please spare me the delineation between wealthy & rich. And just because there are owners out there that you, personally, don’t think deserve to run a franchise, it still doesn’t mean they should give all profits to their players. For every owner you feel doesn’t deserve it, I could easily point out one or more overpaid players.
My comment (mmmmm) and dslack’s are both targeted at the implication that somehow society is better if the ‘overpaid’ athlete is only paid 10M. Because – and this is our point – if the money doesn’t go in the player’s pocket, it goes into the owner’s.
Again, where are you guys getting this?! “Society is better…”?! It’s nothing I posted or even remotely implied. I hear great stories all the time where players & owners BOTH give back to charity or community…but it certainly isn’t slanted heavily either way. Regardless, ‘twas not the point – it’s something you’ve unnecessarily soapboxed. The point was that the owner assumes much more risk for the franchise than do players and it’s OK to not overpay a player ($10M vs. $20M). The player still receives a ton of money & shouldn’t be classified as underpaid by the common man, a.k.a. median wage earners.
2 more points & then I’m out & will aggravate you no longer:
A – The NBA needs to hire all of us “common men” to negotiate the new CBA.
B – Celtics, baby!!
The other thing is
I didn’t suggest anything is a requirement for ownership.
I simply said: Let’s take a look at where the value actually comes from. Players, coaches, GMs, and arena builders generate real value. Owners do not; they simply profit off the value that others produced.
@dslack,
I agree, which is why I would not mind Pierce getting the maximum package over two seasons. I am more concerned with the long-term state of our franchise, namely winning banners, if we were to accede to his demands for a contract of more than 2 years.
P.S. I am still poring over the different statistics in an endeavor to answer your post at the other website. For now, I shall save my detailed reply regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the different measurements.
Loyalty
Realistically I should know he is on the decline and that the Celtics really shouldn’t over pay for his services, but just imagine seeing our captain in another uniform (specifically the Clippers). I really want him to finish his career as a Celtic, so I’m hoping that both sides can be reasonable with what they ask for and a deal can happen. If he took a Ginobili-type deal I’d be happy.
Basketball is like war in that offensive weapons are developed first, and it always takes a while for the defense to catch up. - Red Auerbach
I look at the question a different way
What will it cost Pierce to remain loyal to the C’s compared to what he could get elsewhere, and is he willing to do that? I sure hope so! I already felt sick when I saw the forum topic about Dallas being interested in him. That is just SO WRONG! He’s ours and hopefully remains ours!
I don't blame...
…anyone for trying to get as much money as possible; I want what’s best for us celtics fans!!!
I don't either.
And we won’t even have a good idea until after he signs and we know the terms how close he was to forcing as much money as possible—as opposed to as much money as the C’s thought wise to give him.
respectfully disagree
just not sure there is in this case…..
The scholar does not consider gold and jade to be precious treasures, but loyalty and good faith
Is it Soup Yet?
I want Pierce back ...
but 4 years would be too much. I guess I could live with 3, but 2 would be ideal, same with Ray, then the Big 3 could leave together and the C’s could almost entirely revamp in a single offseason. Pierce isn’t close to a max player anymore, and if he and/or Ray return, Doc needs to severely limit their minutes if he wants them to be effective throughout the postseason.
by rocknrollforyoursoul on Jun 30, 2010 10:02 PM EDT reply actions
call me contrary
…but 33 mill for 3 years would be exceedingly generous for a fading start who’s lost a step and only scores in stretches. But I realize we are dealing at a whole ‘nother level here (not unlike those investment bank exces who ’deserve’ their bonuses), so what’s normal in other sectors doesnt apply. Whatever.
Reckon (as was the case with Pose) it may come down to time. 3 years for Paul, 1 or 2 for Ray. Extra year= shorter money. Ubuntu or bucks?
You people are honestly griping over Pierce wanted to get paid what he’s worth?
How much money has this ownership group made off his sweat? And since the arrival of the Allen and Garnett have much money have they made off all those home playoff games?
It’s not like money goes to charity if Pierce doesn’t get it. I’m not saying we should break the bank for him, but I think the man has earned the right to get paid commensurate with his peers.
I’d like to see Pierce take something like 3 years 45m, 4 years 50m, or 5 years 55m. I just hope someone like Dallas doesn’t come in and godfather offer him.
Yes, he earned his money
if he’s opted out, he’ll leave some money on the table this year, so you have to understand that money is going to go to him in the future. Don’t expect a 2 year contract, it should be 4 years at decreasing money, like FG says, around 50m.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Nothing wrong with tryin to get paid, but seriously, when is enough enough. Like when spreewell says…my kids gotta eat…oh they eat 6million dollars worth of food in a year? come on
Big question is ...
Does Pierce seek a max contract deal and if so do the Celtics think he deserves one.
We will soon find out.
A max deal? At $20M+ per?
No way Danny even considers that.
by TheOutletPass on Jul 1, 2010 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I'm sure he's at least considering it.
The man was due to get paid $21M this year.
That alone puts that price tag on the table. I’m not sure what he’ll get paid when all is said and done, but Paul Pierce is not a fool and no one who isn’t a fool walks out on a $21M pay day without something commensurate in the works.
No way
If anyone offers Paul 3+ years at $20M+, I think he’s an ex-Celtic.
Interestingly, the initial contracts are nuts. Wouldn’t surprise me to see someone do exactly that.
by TheOutletPass on Jul 1, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
2 year extension for $33-9M
‘For point of reference, Manu Ginobili signed a 3 year extension for $39M. When all is said and done, I’d expect Pierce to get something similar’.
I would prefer a 2 year extension for $33-9M, if the owners do not balk at the luxury cap implications. This would allow us to rebuild and hopefully reload once Pierce’s and Garnett’s deals expire at the same time.
This will not happen
Pierce will get a minimum of three years, and maybe four.
With a lockout threatening to wipe out the second year of the deal, he’s not going to accept a two-year pact that would pay him essentially the same amount as the option he just terminated.
by TheOutletPass on Jul 1, 2010 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
While I agree that Pierce would be targeting at a contract length of three or four years, I hope that Ainge resists the temptation. Even if we assume that Pierce is asking for a package of $40M over three years, which is highly unlikely, the last year of the deal would still be over $12M with maximum frontloading.
This would severely hamper our ability to rebuild or even reload on the run in 2013.
This should have been resolved 10 days ago
Maybe it actually was. They met, they talked, what did they say? If Pierce is not amenable to a 2 year contract expiring with Garnett (and Ray), then the rebuilding should have started before the draft. If he and Ray are good with 2 years then go for the 2 year plan. A short term vet to shore up center and swing then makes sense, otherwise not so much (or not at all) and only go for building blocks.
hope this works out for us
>>>Boston Celtics GM Danny Ainge is trying to use Rasheed Wallace’s contract in trade talks, a move that would allow the Celtics to keep their midlevel exception, league sources said.
Wallace has yet to file retirement papers, so the $6.32 million owed him next season and $6.79 million in 2011-12 would come off a team’s books after Wallace is traded to them. They could do a deal and not take on his money. Ainge is trying to use the Wallace contract to bring back a power forward or center to replace Wallace and the injured Kendrick Perkins.
The Celtics could then use their midlevel exception for a different player. Several sources believe that Ainge’s target is Orlando’s J.J. Redick, who is a restricted free agent.
Boston has strong interest in Brad Miller in free agency and could try to acquire Dallas center Erick Dampier.<<<
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
"…traded as many times this summer as a bad hooker’s phone number at a Vegas convention of Proctologists ."
by remembering9ergods on Jul 1, 2010 1:08 AM EDT reply actions
what's next?
If Pierce really cares about the money, then he should go play for the LA Clippers. They need a veteran presence and Pierce will be able to finish out his career at home. If winning is more important to him, then both he and Ray Allen should sign for less and give the Celtics the cap room to bring in some help, like a J.J. Redick. We all know this team can play at a championship level, but there’s no way that last year’s group can sustain that level of play throughout a season. They need that help so the Big Three are rested for the playoffs.
YourSportsSource
by dioselev on Jul 1, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
ESPN
just reported we are getting close with josh childress and may agree to a deal with him.
a 6’8 SG/SF who can shoot very well and europe may have made him better. not a bad sub for ray and pierce, we add redick too as has alos been rumored and we have ourselves a team that can shoot!
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
"…traded as many times this summer as a bad hooker’s phone number at a Vegas convention of Proctologists ."
by remembering9ergods on Jul 1, 2010 1:20 AM EDT reply actions
is there a link on this?
I thought he was restricted.
by TheOutletPass on Jul 1, 2010 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions
dont have one
it was reported on ESPN last night but all i can find is links stating he may be a wizard…..i was really excited about him in green, hope ESPN wasnt blowing smoke
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
"…traded as many times this summer as a bad hooker’s phone number at a Vegas convention of Proctologists ."
by remembering9ergods on Jul 1, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
got any more info on this?
childress is not a bad guy to have if he learns to play our defense
Over the salary cap
Atlanta has matching rights (Childress remains RFA because he played in a FIBA league). No way the Hawks don’t match a reasonable offer of a conference rival.
Well ...
… not if your professional priorities are in this order:
1. Greed
2. Personal pecking order within the league
3. Personal comfort
4. Winning
5. Loyalty
6. Fan appreciation
yeah, for some reason
they get confused into thinking that if they don’t get paid, that the owners end up keeping the money!
Silly players! Don’t they know that if they don’t get paid it goes right back into the fans’ pockets!
But I bet Uncle Sam has already taken away a lion share of the earning.
And players often have other legit financial committments that won’t go away even after they refire, e.g. your pledged supports to the charities, foundations, etc. And, you don’t really expect them to move into an apartment and drive a Hugo after retirement, right?
Truth
The Truth always was a smart player, but now I’m considering his greed, he has a lot of money ( no doubts? ) from contracts, moreover he has more money from commercials in which he used to play, another thing, loyalty – he wants to be a Celt, he really wanted to get that 2nd championship, and he really WANTS, so maybe he’s gonna sign for less money than he wanted and as a result, C’s will have some more money to spend on TOP free agents. I would pay him a lot of money for his Celtic Heart, but if I were to pay him that much money for his game, I wouldn’t do it.
Ty for attention /// Fan from Poland
We don't know enough about what he's holding out for to go accusing him of greed at this point.
And I’m not sure his looking to make top dollar would justify as greed anyway. The C’s are always free to say ‘No thanks’ and hire elsewhere. I’ll be disappointed if the C’s give him too much over too many years, but I won’t blame Pierce for it. I say it is admirable that he’s been silent through this process, however it works out.
Relax
He only has opt-out, we dont know nothing more so we should stop talking about the “greed” of a player that has been with us for so long and so bad years.
Everybody is innocent until proben guilty.
I believe in The Switch
nothing wrong...
with PP want to get paid more. Good for him if Clippers really do offer him max. But If i’m DA 30mil 3 year is the most i’ll go. Not one more year not one more mil. He is now a lower 30 mins range player(30-32) when productive. And you are looking at that productive mins decrease to maybe 25 to 28 in the next few years, even dip into lower 20 mins. IMO 10mil per year is already considering what he has done for the Celtic organization.
Paul Pierce... the Celtics... and reality....
We all need to get real… I am all for Pierce retiring as a Celtic but we need to get real with this… His stats don’t warrant the huge paycheck being thrown around and mentioned in this article… This is not the same PP who 3 years ago dropped 47 against Cleveland to help the Celts advance in the 2008 playoffs… It’s all about the stats… It would be great to have him retire a Celt… but if we are going to give him Lebron, D-Wade… money then let’s try to snag Lebron or D-Wade… R. Gay had better stats this year than PP… Could probably pick him up with $$ to spare… and snag a JJ Redick and/Amare Stoudamire to balance the squad..
The reality being
He still thinks he’s PAUL PIERCE, or at the least, expects PAUL PIERCE money. Love what Paul does on the court and, as noted the owners arent exactly broke but still cant get my head around max deals. This small town boy isnt not sophisticated enough for ‘high finance’.
I doubt the Cs think they have a snowball's chance in Hades of limiting PP's contract to 2 years
Non-starter of an idea.
Individuals Win Games, Teams Win Titles
How Crazy is This ...
KG renegotiates contract to take 2m this year. Paul and Ray do the same. We retain Bird rights on all three and can resign them for as much as it takes next year for long contracts so they spend the rest of their careers and all retire in Boston. With the immediate cap space that creates, we can sign some significant talent to put around them for the years to come. Perhaps even 2 max contract guys. That would make us super competitive for years to come.
I know you are just tossing crazy ideas
but the reason that one is crazy is specifically because the rules prohibit trying to skirt around the cap in long sunset contracts. To keep it short, basically in long contracts that go past age 36, all the money beyond that gets spread across the earlier years for salary cap purposes.
NBA contracts could not be renegotiated downwards
In addition, contracts could not be renegotiated downwards.
This would be illegal
This would under the table agreements, for example Joe Smith at the Timberwolves. The Timberwolves lost three draft picks and the contract was voided.
Eh
With the emergence of rondo as the celtics franchise player, I couldnt care less about keeping paul pierce, might sound crazy but pierce shouldve just stayed on his 1 year remaining, why would we want him back for more? ro retire a celtic? the guys game has slipped precipitously, and hes style of play already doesnt really match with rondos (slow, below average on the break, needs ball in hand and in my opinion still struggles with being the alpha dog and face of the franchise)
Ive never been a Pierce hater, rather hes always been one of my favorite players, and would still be a fan of him somewhere else… he would still retire a celtic guys, but its time to move on
PS
Lebron James has an erractic Jumper and rondo didnt shoot 25 percent for the entire season…at times saw improvement although im not gonna sit here and say he doesnt need more improvement…Im confident he will, no reason not to be
You could point to a weakness of any franchise player and make a comment like u made
Oh Dwight howard isnt a franchise player, he cant shoot from 5 feet away from the basket or knock down a free throw
Lebron James first years in the league his jumper was as erratic as rondos and he bricked any important free throw he took
carmelo anthony doesnt play defense, isnt a good passer and has a low basketball IQ …etc etc etc
PS
Anyone suggesting that at this point in his career, he should be signed to a deal that pays him more then Rondo… is ridicoulous
That's a great point
How could you justify that Pierce make more money than Rondo now and in the future, when Rondo is already a better player, and will continue to widen that gap as the years go by?
But with him opting out of a $21+ million one-year contract, it essentially ensures that Pierce will make enough to compensate for that. And that number will be more than Rondo’s :(
by TomHamilton30 on Jul 1, 2010 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions
The Rondo lovefest continues
There is no way in hell that Rondo is a better player than Pierce right now. If that were the case then we would have beaten LA since Rondo was allowed to do whatever he wanted offensively in that series. He never made them pay for that. If Pierce had been given the same freedom we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now. We’d still be in celebration mode.
I think people are forgetting that Pierce finished this season with the best fg%, 3pt fg%, and ft% of his career. And he did this while integrating Rondo into more of the Celtics offense and subjugating his offense even more than he did in the last couple of years. Those of you that just say, well he never takes over games anymore are ignoring that fact that that’s no longer his job. His job is to play within the system and take what is given him. He did that this season more efficiently than ever before. You think that’s easy? That anyone can do that? All I can say is good luck finding someone to fill those shoes.
One last thing. Paul Pierce has an agent. It’s his agents job to look out for him and try to get him the best possible contract that will see him through the future. His agent is earning his money right now and Paul is letting him do what he’s paid to do. But in the end Pierce will make his decision taking everything into consideration, not just the money. This is a process that is just in the beginning stages and our front office knows this as well as anyone. I think people calling him out are doing so prematurely and making all Celtics fans look bad in doing so. That’s just my opinion.
agreed
(Lakers fan here, but hear me out.)
Pierce doesn’t take over games anymore because he can’t do it—not reliably, anyway. In the Finals, the Celtics were inefficient with Pierce in isolation plays. But, he can knock down the open three, finish well in transition, and still draws fouls very well. (Although how both he and Gasol can continue to fool officials with their ridiculous-looking head jerks is beyond me.) In the Monopoly money world of the NBA, I’d say he’s worth 3 years at 40 million or so. As always, I’m not writing the check.
Rondo could be worth more than Pierce…if he could shore up his 15-footer, whether it’s worth one point or two. He’s able to finish well and is good at setting up his mates, but his inability to consistently hit mid-range jumpers or free throws is hobbling his game. What did he shoot from the line in this series, like 25 percent? The Celtics were able to take advantage of the Lakers backing off of him by having Garnett get ahead of Gasol in semi-transition, but that’s just not an effective long-term strategy. When and if Rondo is re-signed, maybe the base salary should be softened in favor of having some relatively simple incentives predicated on him shooting somewhat better than the average center.
Franchise comes before Players
I have no problem with the capitilistic nature of wanting to make the most money you can. No problem at all with it, but the Celtic Future (Franchise) should always take precedence over a player’s wishes.
The Loyalty to Pierce was paying him well for over a decade to perform. Had he been underpaid and now they want to right the wrong a bit, I’d be fine with it.. but that isn’t the case.
The fact is, the more “loyal” you are to Pierce in this upcoming contract, the less loyal you will be to the Celtic future success. Unfortunate but true.
Scottie Pippen almost broke....
but Rick Mahorn and his wife just filed for bankruptcy
sidenote: dont you just love to hate Mahorn when he was with DET.
greedy and STUPID...
even though they didnt pay as much in the 80’s
by CELTICZ4LIFE on Jul 1, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
the money is insane
so he gives up $21M for one year so he can make $40M for 3 years? wow, what a guy. You know the world is f’d up when a guy who plays basketball for a living makes more in in one game than most people make in a year. And yet we fans keep supporting sports and the owners keep paying. Meanwhile our entire country is broke and we’re in debt up to our eyeballs. It’s good to know we have our priorities straight here in the USA. Go Celts.
3 years, $40 million. I'd do it
Pierce is still the best scorer on the team. The most versatile player we have. His doesn’t post the huge numbers he did in the old days, but that’s because he doesn’t have to.
When I think of Pierce’s offense, I always think he’s as good as he needs to be. If you can win with Pierce scoring 15, he’ll give you 15. But if you need 25-30 from Paul, he’ll give you 25-30. He still has some of the best footwork in the game, can draw contact to get to the line, and still has the devastating step back.
3 years sounds about right. Remember, Rondo isn’t really a scorer.
Yes
I’d do this—fair all the way around to both the team and PP.
by McHaleinthepost on Jul 1, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
They will work it out with Pierce. It is going to be an interesting few days. Check out the Orlando Sentinel today. The writer states that Doc coming back means that the Celtics are serious about another run and that the Magic will have to go through the Celtics to win a title. He recommends they retool. If you are the Magic, do you match an offer for Reddick since he is a restricted free agent? Or do you agree to let him walk so you can retool as the writer suggests? I would love to see JJ on the Celtics as a back up to Ray (if he comes back) or another starting SG.
They matched Gortat...
I will be surprised if they let Redick go – when he totally outplayed Vince…
by nba is the worst on Jul 1, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
They had to match Gortat since they had no option to back up Dwight. They may let Reddick go if they find another back up to Nelson for less money. I agree though that getting Reddick may be a stretch but the guy plays hard and can shoot lights out. He is only going to get better by playing under Doc and with the vets on this team. I hope DA gets it done.
Celtics' Continuity Rare
If we lock up PP and Ray, that will mean that this team will have the same starting 5 (once Perk returns) for the 4th year in a row. If they resign Perk after this season, then 5 years in a row. I have not done the research, but is there another team that can boast this? It is so rare in the NBA these days. With Doc also staying, these guys know each other so well and have the system down, that all they need are some complinentary role players. Also, Davis is coming back and hopefully TA. so it it really the same 7 guys. Can you imagine in Quis’ lived up to his potential last season? That bench would have been ridicluous. And we still came within 4 points of the whole enchilada. I think keeping the core together, plus Doc and DA, is a formula for success and should be admired by other organizations
thing is, i dont think we can win a championship if rondo is our best scorer. if rondo is your best player i dont think that’s enough.
you want rondo to be the one holding the ball most of the time or else he isnt as effective, but then again, other than bigs, who among the max level free agents would be effective with the ball less in his hand?
many are blaming paul for the finals loss, but paul was playing decent until that 3rd-4th quarter of game 7. he isnt a spring chicken, but doc played him 46 minutes in that game. add the fact that the only open shots we were getting were bricked by ray allen.
The Rondo quandary
Great talent, but the holes in his game can be killers.
The ft shooting has to improve for him to make it to top 3, and the jumper as well…
by nba is the worst on Jul 1, 2010 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure how you can make that claim with the run we just had. I have not heard anyone blame Paul for the Game 7 loss. Fatigue and Perk’s absence were key reasons we waned in the last 6 minutes. And I do not think anyone believes Rondo is our best scorer. That is not his role. The 5 starters can still get it done. We have a golden opportunity to sign younger backups and must, must get the Big 3 rest during the season with a quality bench. If we have the 7 players on board from the 08’ championship team, then 4 of them are still young. So hurry up, PP and Ray, and sign so Danny can fill out his roster.
Agreed.
The key to the success of this team throughout the playoffs was not predicated on any one player being ‘our best scorer’. It was based on being a team which is made up of complementary players such that for any given game, against that game’s particular matchups, you’ll have SOMEONE at an advantage over your opponent. So – and this is exactly what happened for the most part – a different player stepped up in each different game.
There will always be the occasional game where Rondo’s got the matchup advantage that lets him reach the hoop with ease and in those, yeah, he’ll score a bunch of points. But you don’t need or want that to be your only weapon. It is preferable for Rondo most of the time to be a facilitator who can recognize which part of the offense has the advantage and to feed that.
Dominant Scorer and Leading Defensive Rebounder
Rondo is our best player, but must be complemented by a dominant scorer and an outstanding defensive rebounder. Presently, I am not even sure if Pierce and Garnett could fulfill these requisites next season, never mind in 2013.
We all knew that there was a 3 year window
to win a title or two once we signed KG and Ray. Well, the 3 years are up and we got one and should have won two.
Anyone who thinks that the big 3 have more than 1 year of title contention left is smoking too much weed. PP and Ray want their last big multi-year contract$ but the reality is that next season is THE LAST year to realistically contend for a title, and that assumes Perkins comes back realitively intact from ACL sutgury and not hobbling around like KG did.
Two year deals, max, and that’s it., then it’s time to set Rondo up for the future. Danny knows this and will deal with these two accordingly.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on CelticsBlog
Related FanShots on CelticsBlog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
