Does Paul Pierce Have a Point?
by Greg Payne on Jul 16, 2010 6:52 PM EDT
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
PrintPerhaps the Celtics re-signing Nate Robinson will be enough to appease what appears to be a rather unsatisfied Paul Pierce.
Speaking with the media during a conference call on Thursday, before the news about Robinson broke, Pierce addressed the Celtics' offseason thus far by saying the following:
"I thought it was a great move picking up Jermaine [O'Neal], giving us an inside presence in case Rasheed [Wallace] retires, but sometimes I'm looking at all the players signing and wish we would get on the ball a little bit," Pierce said. "I trust in Danny [Ainge] to put a good team around us, but I'm sitting here watching all these good players fall to other teams."
The line about "getting on the ball" has certainly drawn interest amongst observers. Sure, with Rasheed Wallace supposedly retiring (more on that in a minute), and Tony Allen heading to Memphis, Boston's bench is looking pretty pathetic right now (it consists of Glen Davis, Avery Bradley, and Semih Erden).
But let's not forget that before Ainge concerned himself with his team's bench, he needed to worry about the five guys who would start for the Celtics on an everyday basis. After all, with Kendrick Perkins suffering that knee injury and Ray Allen and Pierce entering the free agency pool, only Rajon Rondo and Kevin Garnett were sure things heading into next season.
Personally, I think Danny Ainge has done a very good job of keeping this team in tact and on track to compete for another championship next season. In a post a few weeks ago, I laid out why opting to re-sign Pierce and Allen and exceeding the salary cap was the best course of action, particularly for the team's immediate future.
To someone like me, who's stuck on the outside looking in, it has certainly seemed like Danny Ainge has made a number of productive moves so far this offseason. He has thus far managed to retain the services of Paul Pierce and Ray Allen (both critical moves), along with Doc Rivers (crucial), and has also added O'Neal to immediately replace Perkins. Add in bringing in Lawrence Frank to replace Tom Thibodeau, drafting Bradley and Harangody, and signing Erden, and in my book, that stands as a quality list of moves.
But, I'm not Paul Pierce.
While we were waiting to see whether or not Doc, Pierce, and Ray would return, it wouldn't shock me in the least if they all collectively knew they were coming back for another run. Perhaps, as Pierce said, he never really did think once about leaving Boston. Perhaps the same was true for Ray. Perhaps, all along, Pierce knew he, Ray, and Doc would be back, so them all returning hasn't seemed like "moves" to him because he never considered them as outside of the equation. But the fact is, they were moves, and vital ones at that, and cannot be discounted when assessing Ainge's performance so far this offseason.
And if Pierce is indeed failing to acknowledge those moves, the only transactions he was basing his observations on are the acquisitions of Bradley and Harangody through the draft, and Erden and O'Neal through free agency. If I was only referring to these players when discussing the Celtics' offseason, I might be disappointed as well. Pierce probably isn't putting too much stock in Bradley and Harangody, either, only because rookies typically fail to make significant impacts on teams aiming to contend for a title.
While you have to appreciate Pierce's desire for the Celtics to improve this summer through free agency, he has to understand how limited the team's options actually are. The Celtics only had the Mid-Level Exception and Veteran's Minimum(s) to work with, seeing as they are already well over the salary cap. The MLE was spent on O'Neal, meaning they can only offer the Veteran's Minimum to free agents moving forward. Pierce alluded to missing out on the crop of free agents that has already signed with other teams, but the vast majority of those players took deals worth much more than the Vet's Minimum.
I think it's blatantly obvious that if Ainge had the necessary cap space, he would have pursued the higher-caliber free agents in an effort to improve his own club. According to various reports, Ainge was one of the first to reach out to free agent forward/center David Lee, most likely in the hopes that Lee would consider accepting the Mid-Level Exception. Unfortunately for the Celtics, the money just wasn't there, and still isn't.
On top of everything, Boston won't be the only team in contention for the savvy veteran players willing to take a pay cut for a shot at a championship. Teams like Orlando, Los Angeles (Lakers), and the revamped Miami Heat will be looking to add seasoned players for less money as well, and, at this point, what gives Boston the edge against those clubs? Those other teams are all built to win right now as well, but sport a much younger core of players. Three years ago when Garnett and Allen joined the ranks, the excitement surrounding Boston played a major role in landing free agents like James Posey and Eddie House. The C's have no such advantage this summer. Miami is the sole owner of the "excitement" card.
As for Rasheed Wallace's contract, which has been mentioned as a valuable trade asset, if you read through Pierce's comments, he doesn't even sound sure that Wallace is indeed hanging them up. Here's what he told The Boston Herald:
"I'm not sure," the Celtics captain said of whether he believes Wallace is actually going to retire. "I've texted him a couple of times. I think it's still up in the air. I definitely think we could use him, but that's on Rasheed."
Interesting. Well, all Ainge can really do at this point is continue to pursue the best names available and make one heck of a sales pitch to get them to take a pay cut. Pierce and his veteran mates can certainly do their part by embarking on recruiting missions of their own. And if Wallace's contract does eventually become trade bate, all the better.
The Celtics kicked off the "second half" of the offseason by agreeing to terms with Robinson. Hopefully it will be the first of a few more moves that will show Pierce - along with everyone else - that Ainge and co. are serious about putting a contending team on the floor at the start of next season.
137 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Question
I know if a player retires he must wait 1 year to return to his last team. What if we trade Sheeds contract, and he retires with team x, could he return to the Celtics this year? I know it would be a paycut but Sheed might get the itch come March or April. I file this under “not very likely” but I’m curious to the rule.
"They don't buy all those banners at Woolworths."
-- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, on all the championship banners at Boston Garden
by Brett Szabo on Jul 16, 2010 7:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If he files his retirement papers he’s got to wait a year no matter where he signs is my understanding. He might be more inclined to look for a buyout however in which case only the traded player rules would apply (is 60 days before you can return to your team? I forget the details of the so-called Gary Payton rule (even though the Pistons and Lindsey Hunter did it the year before – 2004 championship year – and nobody cared but I digress)). If the owners are willing to throw in the max $3M allowed, I could see a team with the cap space absorb Sheed, buy him out for $2M and pocket $1M for basically nothing (well they’d have $2M less in cap space for this season).
Something still seems askew about the TA issue of leaving
I just think the window for the Celtics of winning with our Big 3 may have closed, especially after the Miami “spend fest” (how can they afford all this – please explain?).
I think things will be very tough for us next season but…………things can change very quickly so I will watch (as I have done for over 40 years) with excitement…..and hope
Injuries can turn teams world upside down…….I hope LeBron is in that category….I don’t wish that on Wade or Bosh or even Kobe…..but Lebron I do…he needs to be humbled…..if that is possible
If the Celtics work hard to be in shape this summer, focus on tough consistent defense all season and Ubuntu…..PLUS show up every night to play hard…..I will root for them just like always…..whatever the record may be……
Still not sure why we drafted Avery, or why we signed a stiff like Erden……..but watching new guys like Harangody who seem to hustle like a young Dave Cowens will make up for a possible weak bench
Peace and nice article Greg
Is it Soup Yet?
Here are Miami's current salaries:
At:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/miami.htm
As of this writing, if you add in Mike Miller’s 5M per year, then they are at a total of ~49M for the following guys:
Lebron 14.5M
Bosh 14.5M
Wade 14M
Miller 5M
Chalmers .85M
That leaves about $7M plus vet minimums left for the rest of the roster (7 guys minimum).
They have to account for contracts to Haslem, Anthony, Hasbrouk & Pittman plus at least 3 other guys. Anybody over the cap only gets minimum money.
u sure they wont coast at times to keep the team healthy and the legs fresh
they know they are making the playoffs, I would not be surprised to see them jump out the gate and take a vacation midseason against lesser teams, not that I condone it
by Warrior Spirit on Jul 17, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Paul just wants to be assured the bench is deep enough to help the starters....
I think we are pretty set in the back court with Nate and Bradley…1 more vet point guard would not hurt.
I think that even with J.O. signing that the C’s still need another big, if Rasheed returned that would be great but if he does not retire someone like Shaq on a discount contract would be ok also.
The big hole is at the wing though as the Tony Allen loss leaves the C’s with a big hole.
Danny must fine a dependable back up wing somewhere…Matt Barnes would be nice.
Wings
We need someone to back up Paul and Ray. Those guys CANNOT play 35 minutes a game anymore.
"simul justus et peccator"
You can write off a title unless the C's find legitimate backup wings
Guarding LBJ and Wade will exhaust Ray and Paul. Guarding Kobe will exhaust Ray. However, options are very limited with the money Boston can offer.
On top of that, scoring remains a problem for this group. Especially in the context of guarding the superstars above.
Right now, Boston looks like it doesn’t have the ability to fill the holes in its roster with championship level supporting pieces.
by TheOutletPass on Jul 16, 2010 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions
pierce right on! target!
it’s about time one of the players said what needs to be said. all the good players are getting signed by other teams and we are getting nothing! come on ainge, sign a couple of really good players, guards and a big buy if you want to compete. stop looking at these old tired dogs. you are smarter than this danny, come on and get some help for this team! you let too many players get away already. if you want this core team to compete one more year, get some quality support!
uhh
Easier said then done, my friend. Do you think “really good” players will sign for the vet minimum? Not likely. Danny is doing the best he can with what he has (which isn’t very much) You gotta think that after letting TA go, he has something up his sleave though.
Doing his best? Not so sure this time around
I dunno about that. Why did he let TA go? Why didn’t he trade Ray back when Ray’s expiring contract had value, and get some younger pieces in return? They could have worked out something with the other team to buy out out Ray’s contract so he could return to Boston (think Cleveland’s Ilgauskas Washignton Wizards buy out). If that doesn’t work out, Ray could just re-sign with Boston once he became a free agent (like he just did). This is just one of many things that could have been done proactively. I’m sure there’s other scenarios involving other players.
The plan that Danny has been using since assembling the Big 3, needs revamping. The team cannot afford to play them 35+ minutes a night anymore and fill in the blanks with an average bench. That worked for for three seasons, but we need young blood at this point.
"You're about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest." Rowan Atkinson
by The Village Idiot on Jul 16, 2010 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
The difference between Ilgauskas and Ray Allen is that
Z got traded, was released and then signed as a free agent. He is now making the vet minimum.
Ray stayed, kept his Bird rights intact and now is making 10mil per for two years.
Do you think Ray would have accepted the trade/buyout/re-sign route when it would cost him 18mil over two years?
I don’t think he would. It’s much better this way.
I agree that bringing back Doc, Pierce, RA and now Nate are all considered “moves”. That’s a good start. Now Danny has to bring it all home with a couple more pieces.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 16, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d love to hear what really good players you think Ainge should be out there signing when he can only offer those really good players a one year minimum salary contract.
Could you give some examples?
The only point Pierce made in his statements is that he doesn’t understand the salary cap.
I wish Ainge would quit looking at the same flawed guys that all the other GM's have picked over.
The Celtics just need a defensive-oriented swing man that can give them maybe twelve minutes a game. There has to be some hard-working young blood out there that would knock himself out for the opportunity. Maybe he’s been in the developmental league, or overseas. But I’m sick of hearing about guys we can’t afford, like Barnes and Brewer. Or broken down relics who’re trying to hang on for one more contract.
It’s the end of a long week, and I know I’m being overly simplistic. But can’t Doc just put some real coaching into somebody new? Everyone on the floor doesn’t have to be a grizzled veteran.
Sounds like you could be describing Avery Bradley. Good news, they have him.
Whats wrong with adding a veteran as well?
Of their current top 8 players, 4 are older than 26. Everyone else under contract is a rookie.
So its hard to say everyone on the floor will be a grizzled veteran.
They could really use a couple though.
Yeah, when you are trying to win NOW
and your purchasing power is constrained,
SPEND YOUR MONEY ON NOW. Whether that means old or young is irrelevant.
In a couple of years, when your purchasing power is much, much stronger, THEN is the time to spend money on the ‘future’.
This philosophy helps you better win now and secures you a better quality future.
If you try to spend what little funds you have now on the future, you will be buying a cheap quality future. That is the trap that mediocre, constantly ‘rebuilding’ teams fall into.
I explained my view poorly. My concern isn't with rebuilding. And I'm all about "now."
I see backup wing players, especially if they’re not expected to score much, to be the most available commodity in the NBA. So I’d prefer to go cheap in that area and use the money to fill tougher positions, like the center spot. I feel you can easily get by with a young, cheap, hard-working, defensive-oriented wing, if the guy understands his role. My objection to veterans is that if they’re proven players, then they’re usually too expensive. That, and they’re less likely to accept their role. I’m not looking for a Paul Pierce wannabe. Just a guy who will make the pass and move his feet.
The rule of thumb states that
it is harder to find a quality center and point guard, so get them locked up first.
DA has completed 2 out of 3 (we needed 2 C & 1 PG) with a lot of the summer to go. He still needs one more backup type center and a wing or 2.
There are (supposedly) more quality defensive wings to be found for lesser money. We will just have to wait for the dominoes to fall for the other teams before DA can fill in the roster a little more with the Sheed trade.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 18, 2010 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions
yes i agree with pierce too
and he has long been a fav of mine, but he should have taken less money if he wants a better team
by Warrior Spirit on Jul 17, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
"he should have taken less money if he wants a better team"
No. It doesn’t work that way.
Even if Paul was playing for the vet minimum, we would be in exactly the same situation.
That is not exactly true in all cases
We could have offered TA a two year contract at 5mil per year. Then he would have fit into DA’s two year window. I’m not saying that offer would be sane either, just an valid option to improve the team if Pierce had taken less money.
That is the probably the only case though.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 17, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
You are assuming Paul's contract had anything to do with TA's contract.
It almost certainly did not.
Both contracts are over the cap bird-rights contracts and the Celtics could have offered TA that 3rd year that he wanted IF they felt he was worth it and they could have instead given him 2 × 5M IF they felt he was worth it. Paul’s contract in now way prevented them from doing so. Don’t give me the luxury tax BS because even with Paul’s contract the Celtics sit at a total of $74M – far far behind team’s like Orlando (91M) and LA (89M). The luxury tax is just a cost of doing business.
The net net is that the Celtics felt that TA simply is NOT worth a 3rd year at 3 × 3 and definitely NOT worth 2 × 5M a year. Period. He is too limited and one-dimensional on offense.
I am assuming only one thing and I'll try to explain it.
The Celtics owners may have set a ceiling on how much to spend this year, depending on expectations. When Paul agreed to take 6mil less, that allowed DA to have just that amount more to fill in the roster. If Paul had taken less, say even 12mil instead of 15, that would have opened up 9mil and the TA contract could now fit in with the overall picture.
Each level of playoff success has a dollar amount associated with it to come out even for a particular team. Making the NBA Finals may be worth 100mil, making the ECF’s may be worth 90mil, and so on. These numbers are all projected out and If DA thought spending 5mil per year on TA would get the team to the next level, he would do that contract, good bad or ugly.
When (and if) the trade for Sheed’s contract is made, don’t you think we will get a good player whose contract may be considered “bad” as well?
As you say, the luxury tax is simply the cost of doing business. Taking on bad contracts is likewise the cost of doing business, if the addition of that bad contract gets the team to the next level.
The fact that the “Celtics felt that TA simply is NOT worth a 3rd year at 3 × 3 and definitely NOT worth 2 × 5M a year” is a valid argument, an important argument and certainly comes into play. In this case, the Celtics felt that by including TA at this cost level, it would not get them to the level where is pays off. I’m saying that if Pierce took less, maybe TA’s could have fit in to the grand scheme.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 18, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions
"The Celtics owners may have set a ceiling on how much to spend this year,"
That is simply pulling something out of thin air. We can sit and play “may have” and never make a valid point.
The Celtics have pulled down roughly ~150M in ticket and TV revenues each of these last three years. That number is actually available somewhere – I’ve seen it and can dig it up if necessary.
That doesn’t include peripheral revenue from concessions, licensed derivative media productions, etc., etc. That almost certainly is a huge number in a market like Boston.
Even ignoring that extra money, they are pulling down a huge profit margin. As of this moment, the Celtic’s salary total (assuming Pierce’s is around 15M) is just around $74M with only vet mins to add to that – doubtful it will go over 80M.
Any way you look at the residuals, it is highly probable that the Celtics have probably raked in at least 20-40M in profit each of the last few years – and I think I’m being extremely conservative.
I just don’t see how the luxury tax on Pauls contract was in any way a factor on whether they were going to pay TA.
Can't...That's a violation of the CBA...
unless you extend it for more years, which would be a disaster, I think.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 18, 2010 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
are you kidding???
ainge loves throwing the ball out of bounds—-but in this case DROPPED THE BALL ON CREATIVE BARGAINING AS “A TEAM”——-REGARDING FREE AGENTS—-REALLY PATHETIC he is still gm!!!—not for long…..
Does Paul understand the salary cap?
The cap is basically spent on 4 players, including him. Who did he expect his $6 mil to sign? Lebron? Boozer? Amare?
I’m disappointed that we didnt go after JJ Reddick but honestly there weren’t many below mid-level guys that I found attractive.
we were interested in Reddick
we just didn’t have enough to offer him, he’s restricted so anything we’d put up Orlando would match, the Bulls have more to offer him than us, they gave him a 19mil deal and the Magic matched it, they don’t want to loose him.
I have to re-post a piece of my previous post in regard to this. I think PP needs to look in the mirror.
One thing Pierce is missing in all this is that players are going to Miami for less than they could get elsewhere because they have the lure of the league’s NEW big 3. Sorry Paul, but part of the reason Ainge is having trouble might be that other players don’t believe the Celtics are a sure bet going into this year.
We fans are grateful that you brought us within a few minutes of another championship. It was an great, heroic run by a hobbled, undersized, inconsistent, short-handed team. But the fact remains, it was a hobbled, undersized, inconsistent, short-handed team. And now, with Perk out and Tony gone, maybe Robinson, too — it’s more undersized and short-handed.
And, hate to say it, a year older.
They brought in Jermaine O’Neal. For the full MLE, by the way. Now they are over the cap. With no money to spend. Just sayin’.
Paul Pierce is one of my two favorite all-time Celtics, but he has to look in the mirror a bit on this one. Players attracting players is a bit boon in free agency. In this case, it may be the difference maker for a team that is severely restricted by the salary cap.
If the Celtics come up dry this summer, you have to realize part of the problem is the lack of confidence from other players in the players already under contract here. Maybe they are weary of the injuries, or the reported chemistry problems. Who knows? But it just doesn’t seem to be a magnet for talent right now.
Don't Blame PP or RA. The Salary Cap is the issue...
unless you expected them to leave A LOT of money on the table. And annually, I’m talking about way more money than LeBron, Bosh, and Wade left on the table. Even modest, MLE-level salaries (say $6M each) for PP and Ray would have put the C’s over the cap, and once that happened, it didn’t make sense to nickel-and-dime them because that wouldn’t have improved the Celtics flexibility at all in the free agent market. So you might as well pay them more.
Once you’re over the cap, you’re over the cap. Doesn’t matter if it’s by a little or a lot.
So the question is: How much money do you think is reasonable to expect stars of their caliber to give up for a shot at improving the team’s roster?
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't mention a single word about how much PP or RA took. Read my post. My point is
that the team, going into this year, is not attractive enough to free agents that THEY will take less money to come here. That’s the fact PP is missing. He’s talking as if DA should be able to pull in FAs with no money. Well, rather than blaming DA, maybe acknowledge that playing with him, RA and KG is no longer a big attraction to free agents.
But in order to come here they have to take the VET MINIMUM...
And the players you want AREN’T signing for the vet minimum. Mike Miller didn’t sign for the vet minimum. None of the guys you all are posting about did. So that means that you are asking/expecting PP and RA to take significant pay cuts to have a shot at these guys.
So the question remains: How much money do you think is reasonable to expect stars of their caliber to give up for a shot at improving the team’s roster?
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
As much as it takes...
“So the question remains: How much money do you think is reasonable to expect stars of their caliber to give up for a shot at improving the team’s roster?”
Didn’t LeBron leave approximately $30M on the Cleveland table just to have a legitimate shot at a chamaionship?
"You're about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest." Rowan Atkinson
by The Village Idiot on Jul 16, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Then I thnk you are being unrealistic...
There’s no law against that, mind you…
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, you asked :)
That is not unrealistic at all if LeBron just did it.
"You're about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest." Rowan Atkinson
by The Village Idiot on Jul 16, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but
The difference between $15M per year and $20M per year (which is less considering that Florida has no Income Tax) is less of a hit than asking Paul Pierce to take $2M per year instead of $15M.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
A Top Five Player at the MLE?
Now, this reminds of the hopes of the fans of the LA Lakers in 2007 that Garnett will opt out of his contract and sign with them at the MLE in 2008!?
Then, the Lakers at least had Kobe, a legitimate top five player. Now, we only have Rondo, who may not become a top five player unless he is more consistent in his jump shot and free throw.
So, why should the likes of LeBron sign with us when they could easily sign with another top five player like Wade at Miami Heat?
I don't think TVI is suggesting the LBJ should be willing to play for the MLE..
I think his point is that LBJ left $30M on the table to create a better team, so Paul Pierce should have been willing to do the same thing, which in PP’s case would have meant playing for (actually less than) the MLE. So he’s actually suggesting that Pierce play for the MLE (or less), not LeBron.
I don’t agree, but there it is.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 17, 2010 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Because, as we’ve done the math elsewhere, the only way that Paul and Ray could have ‘helped the team by taking less’ would have been to basically play for the minimum – anything more than that doesn’t get us far enough below the cap to even pay for the players that we’ve already picked up WITHOUT being below the cap. And the kicker is that that is all it would have gotten us. It would not have gotten us to any better of a situation than we are in right now – it would just have Ray and Paul playing for charity.
So when one says “Lebron took a cut, why can’t Paul?” one is indeed missing the point. Lebron took maybe a ~3M per year pay cut in real dollars over 6 years. Well, so did Pierce, over 4 years.
If one says Lebron took a cut deep enough to ‘help his team’ – his team, after signing LBJ, Bosh & Wade had room to sign at most 2 mid level contracts (Miller’s at 5M per is one of them) at just under the MLE value (5.6M per). Whether they’ll be able to sign another mid level guy or have to spread the money with min contracts around to fill out all the rest of their roster remains to be seen.
Pierce’s team, which already included KG, Rondo & others, after signing him (and Ray) still was able to sign ONE mid level contract (J. O’Neal’s) due to the MLE and we still might be able to get one more mid-level guy via trade of Sheed’s contract.
Yup...
They would have had to agree to play for free. And even then , the C’s wouldn’t have had as much cap space as the other top free agent destinations.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 18, 2010 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions
No, he got a sign/trade, AND
no state income tax.
“What a sacrifice”…
by nba is the worst on Jul 17, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Dude, you are making my point for me. In 2008, guys WERE willing to come here for a song.
Posey and House and PJ.
And once again, I am NOT talking at ALL about how much PP and RA should have taken. That is NOT relevant to the point I’m making, which, since you still seem to be missing it, is that the Celtics don’t have the star power to make up for lack of money and draw decent free agents.
My point is that the C's don't have the MONEY to draw decent free agents.
The guys on this board that everyone wants to come to Boston, NONE of them signed for the VET MINIMUM. THAT’S the point. Even at the “more attractive” locations, they aren’t signing for the vet minimum. So it’s not the “star power,” it’s the MONEY.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why is PP using a phrase like "get on the ball" in reference to DA?
If there’s no money, there’s no money and he should keep his mouth shut or at least not use an insulting phrase like that.
Besides, there are guys out there who WILL end up taking less to play with certain teams this year. Ilgauskis is going to take peanuts to play in Miami. Looks like Matt Barnes is going somewhere for short money again. Even a guy like Anthony Carter would help as a better backup PG (I like Nate, but he’s not a PG, and the rookie is a wish-and-hope situation).
That's why I actually disagree with PP.
And you’re right, there are people who are taking less money to go places. But the best you can really do is take a player who might make slightly more than the vet minimum and convince him to sign in Boston for the vet minimum. And those players aren’t the players posters up here are complaining about NOT getting.
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, so ultimately, I agree with your overall point.
I just don’t understand what he hopes to accomplish by going to the media to complain about the front office. It’s low class.
I guess I SHOULD have titled my original post...
“Don’t blame Danny Ainge…”
by Stanford_Fan on Jul 16, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think it was so much 'Paul going to the media'
as it was the media catching Paul unprepared to make an informed statement. He should know better, of course, to say nothing in that situation.
Tons of NBA people struggle with understanding the CBA rules – including coaches and GMs, let alone players. I’ve heard some stories about Pitino and his inability to grock it that make me cringe. So the fact that Paul is basically wrong on this doesn’t really bother me.
Please don't force me to post my whole reply from the other thread.
You are still simply wrong.
Paul’s salary has zero impact on our ability to sign other players. His money (& Ray’s) comes completely over the cap.
The only way you get under the cap is if BOTH of them played for minimal salaries and even they both played for vet minimums, you would end up with no more room to buy players with because in that situation you lose the MLE. You just can’t get low enough below the cap.
underestimating moves so far
I think we are short sighting the moves made so far.
Replacing Perk with Oneil was the perfect move. He’ll be perfect in the role of being the 5th man on the totem pole. When Perk comes back we’ll have even more depth. (Remember we lost because we couldn’t rebound and match up with LA’s bigs)
Nate will be even better this year having more time to adjust to his role as backup point and electric scorer off the bench.
As far as needing more wings-sure we do. This is the easiest spot to fill. Plus we potentially have Rasheed’s contract to pony up with. But I’m sure we’ll get somebody with the minimum as well. How about giving Marquis another shot.
by MR.BOMB on Jul 16, 2010 8:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
REALITY CHECK
STODDLEMIER WAS THE ANSWER—oneil plays like crap compared to stoddlemier—-thats right settle for mediocrity
I agree with Paul
Also, I think Danny Ainge is doing the best he can with little to offer. If I was Danny, I would clean the bench and start all over. Keep Nate, Glenn and J. O’Neal for the core. Get rid of the rest, someway, somehow and trade them somewhere. How about making a package trade w/ Brian Scalabrine, Marquise Daniels, Michael Finley, Oliver Lafayette, Tony Gaffney and Rasheed Wallace contract? Anything to get rid of these players. I’m SO upset TA is gone! It should had been Marquise, Scalabrine!
scal, daniels and finley don't have contracts
they’re already gone unless we resign them to vet min contracts
I think we have the ability to sign them for a bit more
based on Non-Bird exceptions for Daniels & Finley.
I think we also retain Scal’s Bird rights, but i’m not sure.
at this point, I'm leaning on resigning them
Even if Doc won’t play them in the playoffs, we know what those guys can do and can’t do, we know they can play a few minutes in the regular season to keep the starters fresh and they already know our system. I’d give Danny a few more weeks but we’re running out of options. Teams with cap space are picking up the better mid-level talents. Here’s hoping Danny digs up some gold with Sheed’s contract.
I don't know if Finley will even still play or just retire.
I agree that you need guys to fill out the roster to carry the team through the regular season – you aren’t counting on them for the playoffs.
If you have to go deeper than 9 in your playoff rotation, then that usually means something bad has happened (like, say, losing Perkins in Game 6 ….).
Finley is done. He can't get up and down the court fast enough anymore.
I can live with Daniels, except for the fact that he can’t seem to keep himself healthy and on the court.
It seems that people never learn from the past. They kept Bird, McHale and Parish too long and they are doing the same with Pierce, Allen and Garnet. Ainge should have blown up the team this year and started rebuilding. For those who still think this team is a true contender keep drinking the Cool Aid,
As much as I hate to, I agree.
I really think that last run was the last hoorah.
We had to sacrifice games in the regular season so we could be healthy for the playoffs – it ended up costing us HCA. I just don’t think this team, another year older, can do that again.
Obviously, I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think we can really go for a championship this year.
by RJ87 on Jul 16, 2010 9:03 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
anythings possible
after last years regular season noone thought they had that run left in them. With rondo and maybe another big year left for the big 3, i wouldnt rule out them making another run.
With the wild card being injuries, you never know
Still a longshot…
by nba is the worst on Jul 17, 2010 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
really--
dream on……this team is morally bankrupt—-the problem is they bleww the championship and should have taken pay cuts to bring in young great talent but no,,,love of money has destroyed this team—-owner should start with ainge and throw him out of bounds——-
hey bud I blame doc as much as the guys on the floor
for riding his starters legs into the groung in game 7, a couple of baskets/stops away from a title and now they arent even a contender. I hate Cool aid, but your statement is rediculous
by Warrior Spirit on Jul 17, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Not Really
Nah … he did it for his long-term financial security.
I agree, it was more about long-term security
PP could have taken something closer to Ray’s contract, 4 years at 40mil.
That would have helped the Celtic owners with the luxury tax. Maybe they would have given TA a richer two year contract and kept him in the fold.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 16, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't be so quick to shut off your mind to other ideas
Please read my longer explanation above and then say, “fantasy”.
There is a whole level of thought that you haven’t considered. Bad contracts are a way of life in the sporting world. The cost of goods vs. income related to those costs – the bottom line, is key. I’ll leave it at that.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 18, 2010 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
No. It is fantasy because it didn't happen and was not ever likely to happen.
Pierce, at this stage in his career, was due for a max contract – he could have pulled 18M per year on the open market. No way was he ever going to play for an 8M discount. Every party involved almost certainly did zero planning that assumed Pierce would ever be paid that little.
You are over-weighting the impact of the luxury tax. The cost of the tax is assumed from the get-go going into the negotiations. It is a cost of doing business.
You are also ignoring other factors affecting TA’s situation. Wic has consistently indicated that nothing pisses him off more than players behaving unprofessionally off the court. He has verbally ripped guys when they have screwed up (most recently, when BBD broke his hand punching his ‘friend’ in that limo last fall). TA still has a huge black mark in the form of the shooting / fighting incident in Chicago. I would not be surprised if Celtic ownership is still pissed off about that.
The Fat Ladies Not Singing Folks
We’re Not Done Yet And Neither Is Danny. It’s flip-in July and PP should mind his P’s&Q’s
IMHO of course.
what did pierce expect
did he think we would get a max contract guy? or that one of those guys would take alot less money to play with a core thats all around 35 yrs? Cant blame Ainge, and theres teams that have had much much more disappointing offseasons this year.
Paulie is right
Sheed retiring was a huge gift that we cannot squander
Gerald Green?
Can we please bring him back? He will be cheap, and he is athletic and exciting. Danny, get to it.
I watched him play in a summer league game on NBA TV last night. He's terrible.
Even against rookies and undrafted players, he looked lost.
That may be true
But he has his bursts where he looks like an adequate player. I think with some veteran players such as KG, Ray, and Paul, he could straighten up and contribute.
A Good Point......
After checking out the move of Lebron and others it makes you wonder?? The Lakers will be back and the new three might make a run but what about Boston.We have the talent but something seems to be missing.Say what you will or may the run in LA was a disappointment for me as a Loyal Celtics Fan among Haters in MI….WE need something to help us over the hump.When ahead we need to stay ahead and when down we need that some one to always have a hot hand.I am not and let me remind you again by saying not a (Kolbe) fan but if they had not had( Kolbe )sad to say Celtics NBA Champs???
Paul has good reason to be very concerned!!!
The Celtics were a horrendous rebounding team last year…but, this year is shaping up to be far worse!
Perk will miss practically the entire year, and who knows what to expect when he does return?
KG {3 rebounds in Game 7 vs. LA} will be another year older and less productive.
Sheed & Shelden are gone, while BBD still has no length.
J. O`Neal {a journeyman vet from 1995} is your savior?!?
so who should we have gotten?
fans of everyteam in the nba thinks their team shouldv gotten bosh or boozer. The possibility just wasnt there. Cant blame pierce for being worried, but can blame him for suggesting its ainges fault.
Everybody`s so foolishly concerned about getting "wing" players...
Meanwhile, NBA championships are won in the “paint”!
Teams that defend, rebound, and score in the paint win games. Period.
LA destroyed us with their interior size.
So, what does Boston do about that in the off-season…Nothing!
Why did we ever get rid of Leon?
That guy was a true Celtic. We gave up on him.
by Rebound Machine on Jul 16, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Earl Barron
Averaged a double double for the Knicks in 33 mins, got 18 boards vs the Celtics and chipped in 17 pts in that game
by nba is the worst on Jul 17, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Some body call the waaaambulance!!
This guy is a freaqin cry bay. This is not the old Paul Pierce who did not take crap from no one. He is spoiled know because of Ray and KG. Ron Artest mopped the floor with this guy. He is getting soft. We lost TA’ he is upset, suck it up and move on man. This guy is a pre Madonna. I think Danny is doing a great job with the cards he has in his hands. I love the Celtics, but this guy is pissin me off.
by Rebound Machine on Jul 16, 2010 10:47 PM EDT reply actions
Bosh does not fit in with our system. He is a soft defender.
We do not need boozer either. We will have a strong KG next year.
by Rebound Machine on Jul 16, 2010 10:59 PM EDT reply actions
Reality
Like myself prior to educating myself over the past month, Paul Pierce clearly has no idea how the salary cap works and the limitations that the team had to face going into this offseason.
Like many, I was hopeful the C’s could upgrade and get younger in the offseason. I figured that if Ray Allen was not resigned that would free up ~$19M per year which I wanted the team to use in pursuit of Dwyane Wade. I figured that Wade would sign with us for that, immediately put himself in a position to win additional championships and the future with he and Rondo manning the guard positions for the next 5+ years would be exceptionally bright.
It was a very hard reality when after reading and researching the topic I realized that due to the salary cap, this personal dream scenario had absolutely no chance of working. Clearly there are many here in the same boat as I that don’t clearly grasp the reality of the salary cap situation.
Here is my modest attempt at trying to clear up some of the confusion.
The salary cap for the upcoming season is ~ $58M.
Players that were under contract before free agency began:
Rajon Rondo: $9M
Avery Bradley: $1.4M
Kevin Garnett: $18.8M
Glen Davis: $3M
Kendrick Perkins: $4.1M
Rasheed Wallace: $6.3M
For these 6 players, The Celtics are on the hook for ~$43M. Those contracts cannot be renegotiated or lowered in any way. You would think that would leave them approximately $15M in cap space to sign a big name free agent. Unfortunately that is not the way the NBA salary cap works. All NBA teams are assessed something called a cap hold for all of their free agents. Not sure why they do it, but they do, and because of it, the Celtics were/are way, way over the $58M cap.
The only way to get around the cap holds are to renounce your rights to the free agents which means you no longer have the ability to sign those players for anything other than the vet minimum (I think that is correct – if not please feel free to correct me.) In other words we would not have been able to resign Pierce or Allen or Robinson to reasonable contracts and they all would have left, retired or had to sign for next to nothing. Additionally, we would not have been allowed our MLE because we would have been under the cap.
What does that mean? Well. we MIGHT have been able to sign a Wade or a James for $15M although the odds are remote. IF we could have signed one of them we would then have had 7 guys on the roster taking ALL of our cap space. One of them, Perkins, is going to be out for an extended period of time. The other, Wallace has strongly hinted at retirement. That leaves us 5 players and nothing but vet minimum contracts to fill out the roster with.
Knowing this, Ainge and the FO have done everything they can to bring back their own players in order to assemble the most competitive roster they can to compete for the next several years, as the league allows teams to go over the salary cap to resign their own players. I’m sure you’ve all read about them – things such as “Bird Right’s” and “non Bird RIght’s”, etc.
Additionally, because the team is over the cap the league allows a “mid-level exception” which as everybody knows was used to bring in Jermaine O’ Neal.
So, essentially, for the $15M in cap space the team would have had at the start of free agency if they had renounced all of their free agents, the team has already added Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Nate Robinson and Jermaine O’ Neal. They additionally still retain their “Bird” and “non-Bird” rights to the likes of Daniels, Scalabrine and Finley and can either sign said players or sign and trade players if they can find a willing partner.
What this offseason really boils down to is which would you rather have?
1. Rondo, Garnett, Perkins, Davis, Bradley, Wallace, MAYBE Wade or James, and 6-8 vet minimum players. (7 players – one injured and one possibly retiring)
2. Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Perkins, O’ Neal, Davis, Robinson, Bradley, Wallace, Erden, the possibilities of signing or sign and trades of Daniels, Finley and Scalabrine and 1-3 vet minimum players (10-11 players and some flexibility with the remaining players from last year’s roster)
3. Scrap the team and start from scratch. (6 players, 1 injured, 1 retiring and ~$15M to fill out a roster)
I think it’s pretty clear Ainge and the FO have done the right thing this offseason based on the fact they only had $15M at most available to start the free agency period.
Thank you for in-depth analysis.
I believe that Ainge is reloading for one final run, on the basis of the playoffs. If we falter next season, look for Ainge to use the expiring contracts of Garnett, Ray Allen, and Nate Robinson as trading chips in 2011. Even if Ainge fails to do, we will be beneath the cap in 2012. Then, we will be even more so if not for the contract of Pierce.
Does it concern anyone else when players like Brewer are willing to take the same offer to play in Chicago over Boston?
I’m very concerned with the C’s ability to acquire free agents in post Pierce/KG/Allen Era. Boston is a cold weather city, and it’s not a high glamor city (like NY.)
I’m starting to get worried that when the current run ends Boston will have a hard time competing for players to come play w/ Rondo and Perk.
Back to the Ranks of Also-Rans
Around the NBA, there is a prevalent perception that the Miami Heat, Chicago Bulls, and even the Orlando Magic would be the contenders from the Eastern Conference. Many, if not most, think that we are on the downward trajectory.
When the current run ends, probably as early as next season, we would be competing for free agents on our ability to pay. Perhaps, the more prudent means would be trading expiring contracts for younger talents, which is the approach I believe that Ainge would ultimately undertake.
He didn't get the same offer
The Bulls offered the same money but a different deal for Brewer because he can be a starter there.
And yes we are on a downward road currently. But when KG’s and Ray’s contract is over we can sign new free agents and start to build a new championship team. The C’s have the owners who are willing to pay and a GM who is able to deliver. They proved it already.
" players to come play w/ Rondo and Perk."
This will not be a problem, after KG’s, Ray’s, et. al’s contracts expire in 2012 – we will be able to pay players to come and play with Rondo and Perk.
Boston has plenty of cache’ to attract free agents – we just attracted J O’Neal over Dallas and Denver. We just don’t have plenty of money at the moment (due to the cap rules) to pay for more.
Can I get a A MEN my brother!
We are trying to make Lemonade with just Lemons.
by Rebound Machine on Jul 16, 2010 11:03 PM EDT reply actions
Perhaps had we not paid Mr. Pierce so much... We could have snagged some better players
OK… Pierce has maybe 1 to 2 good years left on him…. So we give him a 4 yr contract? So as he complains about pickups… Perhaps KG, Ray (overpaid by the way), and Pierce could have taken a pay cut to snag another good player… Imagine Bosh…. or Stoudamire downlow with KG… Heck I would have thrown Ray and Perk for Wade…. Or Ray and Perk for Stoudamire.. One can dream but realize that before PP complains about the Celts poor pickups this offseason (Yeah Jermaine O’neal was decent 7 yrs ago…) He should have looked to see if he really cut back as much as he could for the benefit of securing another player…
That's what I`m talkin about brother!
KG should be the Captan of this team! You don`t hear him crying and complaining. Rondo and Perk are not crying.
by Rebound Machine on Jul 16, 2010 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Paul is on Target
I’m so happy that Paul Pierce spoke up about the lack of good quality supporting bench. I respect him now more than ever. The big 3 are in their 30s they need good quality players off the bench to bail them out when they run out of gas. They didn’t have that that’s why the lost to the Lakers so I hold Danny responsible for that loss . Danny Ainge handed the Lakers the trophy last month. You can’t win championships with loser bench players like – Scal, Marbury, Mike Moore, Finley, Shelden Williams, Marquis Daniel.
Thanks to Paul for speaking up though long overdue.
Ooh by the way, a week ago Doc Rivers also did point out that lack of perimeter shooters off the bench hurt them during the regular season and finals. And he urged Danny Ainge to be aggressive with free agent before other teams grab all the good players.
So far it doesn’t look good for the Celtics I hate to say it all the good quality players are gone.
Paul is the Captain of the team
Who else would you expect to say something about the lack of depth on the bench, Truffles is right, no way you win a championship with more scrubs on your team than role players. If its been frustrating for me to watch the free agency race then i can only imagine how Paul feels. Point of the matter is Danny has done NOTHING, to me re=signing Celtics whom only want to play for us isn’t making a move, there’s no pitch just agreements. As far as going out and convincing somebody that they can win a chip but we need them and they need us all DA has done is get JO…. but he also lost TA so that kinda puts him back to 0 for me. only appropriate PP gets on him for his performance thus far.
If PP is on target... Then why did he not take a pay cut to help get a better player???
Money talks… BS talking… is just that.. BS talking….
Because Paul taking a (bigger) pay cut would not have made a bit of difference.
Please take the time to read the many, many posts on CelticsBlog (including in this very thread) that have explained, in detail, why the size of Paul’s contract makes NO DIFFERENCE to our ability to sign new players this year. He could have played for the vet minimum and we would not be in any better shape.
Money talks. That’s for sure. He’s earned the Celtics and the NBA a ton of revenue over the last few years and will do so over the next 4. Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t get paid appropriately?
The blogs above did state that a reduced PP paycheck would make the difference...
Actually, these blogs are partially correct… Even with a vet min… and a contract mod… You can get players… Actually the blogs above did state that taking vet mins would have provided some options…
Besides as “team leader” he could have pushed management to trade off certain players for others… Whining after the fact just makes him “team whiner”…
Oh and he is getting paid appropriately… the only reason people are buying his jerseys is because he plays on an NBA team… Nobody would be buying his jersey if he was playing in a European team making the same amount of cash… So it’s a two way street… The media access the NBA provides these guys results in big time endorsements for these guys… Ask Jordan…
Nope, it still wouldnt have made a difference.
Even if Pierce took much less, they’d still be over the cap and only able to offer veterans the minimum.
Now matter how many times you make these statements, they aren’t going to be true.
The Celtics are approximately 20 million over the cap, Pierces new contract starts somewhere around 14 million.
There is no way he could take less to get them under the cap.
What are you talking about?
The only way Paul taking vet minimum gets us under the cap is if Ray ALSO took far less. The problem is that you don’t want to get ‘just’ under the cap. IF we had gotten just barely under the cap, then we would have lost the MLE (almost 6M) with which we acquired JO.
Getting under the cap only helps if you can get WAYYYYY under the cap. So for that to happen you would have had to have BOTH Ray and Paul playing for vet minimum contracts (which is complete fantasy land ridiculous). But here is the kicker – even if you dropped both those guys down to minimum contracts (let’s say a combined 3M for both) that only drops our salary down to about 47-48M prior to our J.O. & Nate signings. Once you add just those two guys, you are suddenly RIGHT BACK OVER THE CAP at ~57-58M!!!!
So, we’d be at exactly the same point we are right now – we’d have Sheed’s contract and vet minimum contracts with which to work with – and two seriously underpaid superstars.
SO there really is no point to this talk of how Paul (or Ray) could have helped us by playing for less. He could not have.
We are over the cap, and that is that...
How much over the cap the owners are willing to go is now the issue. Getting close to the cap, or under it, is not.
The owners may hace set a spending ceiling. If Pierce had taken less, there would be more money to take on additional contracts, good or bad.
by GetYourSoxOn on Jul 18, 2010 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions
No, there wouldn’t be more room.
How can they take on additional contracts? If you’re saying they could take on a big one from another team, they’d have to send one out as well. They don’t have one to send. They need every guy on the current roster making more than the minimum.
Plus, you’re pulling the possibility that the owners have given Danny a spending ceiling out of thin air. If they were adamant about saving money, why all the rumors of the Celtics trading Rasheeds contract to bring in other players? Wouldn’t it have just been an easy way to save money to just let Sheed retire and save the money he has coming to him and they wouldn’t look cheap?
Nothing in this ownerships track record gives anyone reason to think they are trying to go the cheap route. Sadly, they aren’t allowed to break NBA salary cap rules to bring in all these great players people want.
what are you talking about?
PP is making 15M this season as opposed to the 21M he was expected to make because he opted out his contract and made a new one worth less…
KG
Should redo his contract to free up more money to make pick ups we need…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
