Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: UFC 146 Results: Junior dos Santos TKO's Frank Mir

Salary Cap FAQs: Post-Trade Edition

It's been awhile since I've done a FAQs article, but with the recent activity at the trade deadline it's clear that a lot of people have some unresolved questions.  These answers are accurate as of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, but keep in mind that all of this could easily change this summer at the players and the NBA negotiate a new CBA. 

Without further adieu, here are the FAQs.  If you have any further salary cap related questions, ask them in the comments below.

1.  I keep hearing that Perk turned down a "max" contract extension of $22 million.  If we have his Bird rights, how can that be accurate?

The thing to remember is that extensions are not the same thing as free agent signings.  For non-rookie players, the CBA limits the first year of a contract extension to 110.5% of the salary in the last year of the existing contract. Then, after that first year value is established, Perk could receive raises equal to 10.5% of that last year value every year. The extension could have been for no more than four seasons.

In other words, the most we could offer Perk in an extension was as follows:

$5,127,429.84 (10.5% raise over last year of contract)
$5,614,650.97 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)
$6,101,872.10 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)
$6,589,093.23 (raise of $487,221.13, equal to 10.5% of prior contract’s last year value)

Total: 4 years, $23,433,046.14 (which is quite a bit less than the MLE)

On the other hand, this summer we could have used "Bird rights" to sign Perk to up to a six year deal, with a starting salary of up to approximately $16.2 million in the first year, with annual raises equal to 10.5% of the first year value.  Obviously, Perk was never going to be given a contract like that, but an asking price of 5 years, $50 million wouldn't have been outrageous.

To inject some personal opinion here, it's probably unfair when people criticize Perk for "turning down a contract extension", since the offer was capped by the CBA.  It's unlikely that the team ever expected Perk to accept its extension offer, and the offer would have been used as a jumping off point should the team and Perk have wished to revisit negotiations.

Star-divide

2.  Is Perk still a free agent this summer?  Could he re-sign in Boston?  Does OKC have his Bird rights?

Yes, Perk is still an unrestricted free agent.  His Bird Rights transfer to OKC, meaning they can sign him for up to six years.  However, nothing binds Perk to OKC (at least under the current CBA), and he'd be free to sign with any team in the off-season, including Boston.  The most we could offer him as it stands right now is the MLE, which currently would be approximately 5 years, $35 million.

3.  I heard that both Krstic and Jeff Green are free agents.  How much can we sign them for?

Both Krstic and Jeff Green are free agents this year.  Krstic is unrestricted, and Jeff Green is a restricted free agent.  We own the Bird rights to each player, meaning we can sign each for up to a six year contract in the off-season (assuming that the current CBA remains in effect), for up to a "max" contract (starting around $13 to $16 million, with an annual raise of up to 10.5% of the first year value of the contract.)

4. Wait, what is a "restricted" free agent?  How does that differ from an unrestricted free agent?  Will we have Jeff Green back next year?

Restricted free agency applies to first round picks following the fourth year of their rookie scale contracts, or for all other veteran players who have been in the league three years or fewer.

To make a player "restricted", a team must extend that player a qualifying offer.  In the case of non-first rounders, the qualifying offer must be 125% of the player's previous salary, or the minimum salary for a player of that experience level plus $175,000, whichever is greater. 

Jeff Green's qualifying offer next year is $5,908,641.  If he chooses, Green can "accept" the qualifying offer and choose to play the Celts for that $5.9 million salary next year, and become an unrestricted free agent in the summer of 2012.

Once a free agent is restricted, the player isn't required to play for the qualifying offer; he has the right to sign a contract offer sheet with any team of his choosing.  The player's original team retains the right to match any offer sheet the player is signed to.  This is different from the case of unrestricted free agents, where the original team has no right to match an offer sheet from another team. 

Word on the street is that Green was asking for a contract of around 5 years, $50 million when in OKC.  If I had to guess, I would say that the Celtics preference is for Green to play for the qualifying offer next year, before making a final free agent decision on him in the summer of 2012.

5.  We acquired the Clippers 2012 first rounder in the Perk trade?  Where did OKC get the pick?  Are there any restrictions on the pick?

Oklahoma City traded us the Clippers 2012 first round pick they acquired for trading the rights to Eric Bledsoe to the Clippers on draft night.  This is the Clippers own pick.  The pick is "top ten protected" in 2012 through 2015, meaning that if the pick falls in the top ten selections after the lottery is held, the Clippers keep the pick and it "rolls over" until the next draft.  In 2016, the pick becomes unprotected, meaning that we get it no matter what.  Note that we do not have the option of choosing to roll the pick over; if the Clippers fall outside of the top ten, the pick becomes ours.

The Clippers also own Minnesota's #1 pick next year.  In the unlikely event that Minnesota finishes with a lesser draft pick than the Clippers in 2012, we would receive the Minnesota pick, provided it is not in the top-10.  If both Minnesota and LA are in the top-ten, then the pick would roll over to 2013, as noted above.

6.  What benefit did we get out of the trades with Cleveland and Sacramento?

While the Cleveland and Sacramento trades didn't look like big deals, they did provide a benefit to the team.  First, of course, we acquired a 2013 Twolves second rounder from Cleveland.  Perhaps of equal importance, the team saved several million in luxury tax payments.  Teams only pay luxury tax on the contracts that remain with the team at the end of the season (i.e., players on the roster, or waived players who weren't claimed by another team.) Therefore, we don't owe tax payments on Luke, Semih, or most importantly, Marquis.  This saves the team a little over $3 million.

Also of importance is that the team picked up a "trade exception" of $2.388 million.

7.  Explain the trade exception thing some more.

Basically, a trade exception is an artifical construct of the CBA, that is used to balance trades when incoming money and outgoing money aren't equal.  Here, Sacramento took on Marquis' entire contract of $2.388 million, and didn't send any salary back.  Therefore, to balance the trade on our end, we are granted a "trade exception". 

In a nutshell, we're granted a $2.388 million salary slot to trade for a new player any time within the next year.  The player we acquire must have a salary of no more than the amount of the trade exception amount (or no more than  100% of the amount + $100k if acquiring a player via trade), or in this case $2.388 million total ($2.488 million if by trade).  Exceptions can't be combined together, and they can't be used to sign a free agent, although they *can* be used to pick a player up off waivers.

8.  Are there any restrictions on the second rounder we picked up from the Cavaliers?

There are no reported restrictions on the pick.  The pick apparently is the Twolves own second rounder, acquired by the Cavs in the Ramon Sessions / Delonte West deal.  However, at least one source has stated that the Celtics got their own 2013 second rounder back, by way of the Twolves.  I don't believe we traded our 2013 second rounder to the Twolves in the KG deal, and I can't think of any other trades between the teams, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

9.  What's the deal with buyouts?  Is there a limit to how much of a player's contract he can agree to buy out?  What is the last date on which a player can be bought out and still be eligible for a team's playoff roster?  How many free agents can we sign?

At any time, a team and a player can agree to a buyout of that team's remaining salary obligation to that player.  The Celtics did this with Vin Baker, Dino Radja and Rasheed Wallace in the past, and in recent years Chris Webber, Sam Cassell, Joe Smith, Drew Gooden, Stephon Marbury, Mikki Moore (ugh) and others have all agreed to buyouts.  In a buyout situation, the team pays a player a reduced amount, and allows that player to become an unrestricted free agent (after they clear waivers).  The team executing the buyout is responsible for the agreed upon sum, with the cap hit being divided out equally among the remaining years of the contract (ie, in Vin Baker's deal, he had three years on his deal, and he agreed to a $16 million buyout.  Thus, the team carried a $5.33 million cap hit on its salary cap for three years.)  There is no limit to the amount of salary that can be bought out.

In order for a bought-out player to be eligible to play on another team's playoff roster, he must be bought out no later than March 1, 2011.  You will inevitably read reports that state that the player must sign with a new team by March 1 to be playoff eligible; this is erroneous.  The only deadline for signing is the last day of the regular season.

10.  How much can we offer bought out players?  Can other teams offer more?

Bought out players are free agents once they clear waivers.  Teams can sign them with cap room, or with any other salary cap "exception" they may have, such as the MLE, the LLE, or the minimum salary excpetion.

The most we can offer bought out players is a minimum contract, which ranges from $473,604 for rookies to $1,352,181 for players with 10+ years of experience.  Since we're 2/3rds of the way through the season, the players would receive a pro-rated share of the minimum.

Among contenders, Boston, Miami, Chicago, and the Lakers can only offer minimum contracts.  Orlando has its LLE / Bi-Annual Exception of $2,080,000 left, and San Antonio has both its LLE and $2,365,000 of its MLE left.  Dallas has its entire MLE -- $5,765,000 -- left, along with its LLE.  In other words, if bought out free agents care about money, there may be better options for them.

11.  I keep hearing Rip Hamilton's name come up.  Will he be bought out?

It's possible, but unlikely.  Hamilton is owed the remainder of his $12.5 million this year, plus has $21.5 million left in guaranteed money on his contract over the next two years.  If Detroit were to buy Hamilton out, they'd be keeping a fairly large cap hit on their books for the next two years (plus this one) for a player they couldn't play or trade.  Hamilton was offered a buyout as part of a potential trade to Cleveland, but he turned it down because he didn't want to give back a substantial amount of his guaranteed salary.

12.  Where did Chris Johnson come from?  What is a "10 Day contract"?

Chris Johnson was an unrestricted free agent who was previously playing in the D-League.  We signed him to a 10 day contract, which is a contract for 10 days or the next three games, whichever is longer.  Teams can sign players to a maximum of two 10 day contracts in a season.  Johnson signed for a pro-rated minimum salary, which is the most that we could offer him.

13.  Don't we own the rights to Stephane Lasme, Tiny Gallon, and Mario West from the D-League?  Why didn't we just "call up" one of these guys?

This is a common misconception.  Lasme, Gallon, and West played for us in training camp, and now play for our D-League affiliate in Maine.  However, we don't "own their rights".  Instead, these guys are unrestricted free agents, who are eligible to sign with any team.  If we want to sign them, we have to negotiate a contract for them, just like any other team would have to.

14.  I still don't get it.  If we needed to clear roster space so badly, why didn't we just send Luke Harangody and Avery Bradley down to the D-League? 

NBA rosters are capped at 15 players, whether those players are playing for the NBA club or one of its D-League affiliates.  Unlike the case of Lasme, et. al., we did own the rights to Luke, Bradley, etc., because these guys had been signed to NBA contracts.  Therefore, sending them down to the D-League was irrelevant to clearing roster space.

15.  Troy Murphy hasn't even been bought out yet.  Since he isn't a free agent yet, isn't it tampering for teams to discuss their future plans with him?

Yes, technically it's tampering for a team to talk to a player who is under contract to another team, like Murphy is with the Warriors.  However, teams commonly violate this rule, so it's a pretty good bet that Murphy knows about the Celtics interest, and the Celtics have at least gotten some indication that he's interested in them.

16.  Is Rasheed coming back?  If he did come back, would his previous salary be reinstated?

Rasheed has repeatedly denied that he's coming back.  However, if he were to come back, he'd be in the exact same shoes as any other free agent.  His previous salary wouldn't be reinstated, and he wouldn't owe us any money from his retirement buyout. 

17.  Where can I research these issues on my own?

Larry Coon is an invaluable resource, and is the go to guy on all questions related to the CBA.  You can also find previous additions of this FAQ   You can also check out the previous versions of this FAQ: 2007, 2008, 2009 (sorry, no 2010; life got in the way last summer).

18.  You're not going to end on 17 questions, are you?  Isn't that bad luck?  I thought the theme of this season was supposed to be "Eighteen".

Right you are.  (How long until they cut Perk out of that video?)

Comment 57 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

very good review

Interesting point – if Perk would resign with the C’s. I mean, do the C’s have enough salary room for him? Perhaps if Kristic was let loose, and if J ONeal isn’t kept on…

by Joebrown42 on Feb 28, 2011 5:28 AM EST reply actions  

I doubt it. Perk will be FA this summer and KG and Ray have still one more season left on their contract, which means we’re over the cap. Which means we can only offer the MLE.
JO has signed for the MLE and he has one more season left too.

by dexter11 on Feb 28, 2011 7:59 AM EST up reply actions  

Not to mention...

He’s probably a little upset with the FO for trading him, right?

Business or not, I’m not sure we can see a Cliff Lee approach to returning to the Celtics the next off season. Perk might be more likely to stay with the Thunder, where they need that inside presence against the Lakers and have a good young core to contend for years, and play with a chip on his shoulder that Danny shipped him out.

At least, that’s what I think is more likely than him coming back to us for less money…

by AlohaSox on Feb 28, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

At least we'll get a full season out of O'Neal.

It’ll be his contract year…..Ironically, he’ll be a paragon of health.

by Finkelskyhook on Feb 28, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Troy Murphy's just been bought out- I'll bet his agent's phone has been ringing.

 Does Quisy’s salary apply only to next year, or can it be used this season for someone like Murphy, e.g.?

Lygafe

Lionel Gaffen / Fotomix | International Hockey Forums > Europe > ISRAEL
Israel Recreational Hockey Association 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 [ Lygafe ] | Israel Ice Skating Federation - From the Media [ Lionel Gaffen ]

by lygafe on Feb 28, 2011 5:37 AM EST reply actions  

trade exceptions last 12 months, IIRC

… but they’re irrelevant in the case of Troy Murphy, as they can’t be used to sign free agents.

by theBird on Feb 28, 2011 9:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Fantastic! Thanks.

by itsgabriel on Feb 28, 2011 7:16 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

So I guess Sheed didn't technically retire?

His salary is still on the books, according to Hoops Hype. That mean his salary counts against the luxury tax? If so, seems like kind of a raw deal for the C’s…

by theham on Feb 28, 2011 8:17 AM EST reply actions  

That was confusing everyone for some time.

Danny used language recently that indicates that they did indeed buyout Sheed so his buyout check counts toward the cap. Since they bought out both this and next year, the amount would be prorated across both UNLESS he filed official retirement papers, which would terminate his hit against next year’s cap.

Shamsports shows Rasheed at just $457K for this year and does not show anything for him on next year’s budget:

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

That implies that he DID then file retirement papers.

I’m not sure why HoopsHype continues to show Rasheed’s full contract on both years.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Feb 28, 2011 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

He turned down the most they could give him. Fact.

"Do you know that nonbelievers create the most positive energy?" Davis said

by Birdbrain on Feb 28, 2011 8:48 AM EST reply actions  

But that's playing loose with the facts

Because saying that he turned down the most they could give sounds like a lot (in NBA terms) when it wasn’t. Once the summer hit, his “max” offer from the Celts would increase dramatically, with one year being worth what three was in the extension he was offered. And if JO and Sheed were MLE players, then Perk certainly was one at a minimum. There was no question that he’d get a contract worth at least 50% more than that offer, and probably something much more.

Why is it a big deal that he turned down a contract that people would have called him stupid for signing? He still might have been traded if he signed — DA just would have been able to get a lot more for him.

by egotistical ma on Feb 28, 2011 8:57 AM EST up reply actions  

It's big deal to be honest about the situation and to not inject

your own feelings into the discussion. None of has a clue as to why Danny thought he wouldn’t take what they thought he was worth this summer. I don’t think he’s worth a 50% pay raise at all.

"Do you know that nonbelievers create the most positive energy?" Davis said

by Birdbrain on Feb 28, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

YOU may not think so

and that’s a fair opinion for you to have.

But Danny (and Perk’s agent) BOTH apparently believe that the NBA market disagrees with you. Otherwise Danny could have anticipated Perk getting lowballed by the market and easily resigned him for cheap.

The reality is that based on the salaries handed out last year to veteran centers, it is highly likely that Perk could command at least $8M per year. That’s the market. Plus multiple teams (including OKC) were clearly going to vie for Perk in free agency. Perk’s agent knows that. Danny knows that.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Feb 28, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah someone will probably overpay

for him. Not sure what that means in this discussion. The only thing important is that it won’t be Boston that overpays for him. It’s clear DA doesn’t think he’s worth it.

"Do you know that nonbelievers create the most positive energy?" Davis said

by Birdbrain on Feb 28, 2011 10:55 AM EST up reply actions  

He turned down the most money they could give him now

That’s NOT the same thing as he turned down the most money they could give him this summer. And since the summer and this season were not far apart in time, there was a very low risk of getting less in turning down that deal. Greater than 0, but very low considering the tremendous salary increase potential.

Furthermore, what “Danny thinks he’s worth” is certainly not the same as what “every GM thinks he’s worth” and not even the same as “what Danny thinks he can afford to pay.” At the end of the day, the market establishes value, and given the market’s pricing of centers, there is no question that Perk was looking at the MLE as a starting point for potential salaries. And Danny helped to set that market by signing Sheed to the mid-level in 2009, and JO in 2010. Regardless of how good Perk thinks he is, he is certainly correct that he’s better than those two. I bet Danny would sign Perk for the MLE in a heartbeat, but that’s not an option in the middle of the season. (I also bet he won’t sign for the MLE, because he’ll get far more than that.)

by egotistical ma on Feb 28, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Is it fair to mention that DA offered the extension while Perk was in rehab and no one knows if he'll be able to come back successfully?

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

- Bill Russell

by Marjun Raposon on Feb 28, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Sure its fair

But it’s also fair to assume that Danny thought Perk would be able to come back, since he wouldn’t offer a contract otherwise.

The contract extension was offered because it could be. But it was a mere formality in negotations, and not something that anyone should have thought would be accepted. When the offer was rejected initially, you didn’t hear anything about it, because of course it was rejected. Now that he’s traded, you hear about it. But that’s the only reason it was even on anyone’s radar.

I think it was a good trade to make, for this season and next. I just don’t like the revisionist history that Perk was a) greedy, b) had a big ego, and c) wouldn’t have re-signed with the Celtics. It’s unnecessary and mean-spirited.

by egotistical ma on Feb 28, 2011 12:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree with you on that - that Perk wasn't greedy/egoistic. He wouldn't be a team player if he was.

Perk chose to protect himself and his future, that’s it. After all who wouldn’t maximize his ability to earn while he can in this business/career which will only span an average of around 12 to 15 years (if you’re lucky). If anyone is on that situation, would you easily judge him as someone who’s greedy? I think that is not fair.

I mentioned the original post to allude to the vote of confidence DA had on Perk. The thing is DA also chose the team’s interest and future. I also agree on this being a good trade.

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

- Bill Russell

by Marjun Raposon on Feb 28, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions  

He thinks he's better than he is

but, that’s probably from hanging around KG.

"Do you know that nonbelievers create the most positive energy?" Davis said

by Birdbrain on Feb 28, 2011 10:07 AM EST up reply actions  

the way I have been seeing this

Perk thought that he gave the Celtics a discount in his current contract
The celtics thought they paid fair value
this time it caused more issues, the Celtics offer reflect what they thought Perk value has been all along and Perk thinks he is worth a lot more.

I am glad this was done so early with, otherwise you risk getting over bid by teams who I am sure were willing to pay him full MLE at least, a la Heat.

by aboubata on Feb 28, 2011 9:45 AM EST reply actions  

QUestion

ANyone else find it funny/sad that when I think of our team, I often forget that shaq and jo are even on our roster. Two bigs that even though they arent in their prime, a lot of teams would still love to have them…and we got them, we just forget and/or dont “count” them due to the amount of actual court time they have put in for us. Just saying…

by Kgwillkillyou on Feb 28, 2011 9:51 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

One question, Roy

Nice job, by the way.

In #5, you state “In the unlikely event that Minnesota finishes with a better draft pick than the Clippers in 2012 … .” By my lights, Minny is likely to suck worse than the Clips in 2012; thus, their draft pick should be better than that of the Clips. Right? What am I missing?

"People don't understand, if you can't live the rest of your life off one year in the NBA, you can't live off 21." -- Keon Clark

by Eeyore III on Feb 28, 2011 10:42 AM EST reply actions  

yeah, I have to agree that on paper, right now, the Clippers look to be better than the TWolves next year.

Roy -

If I’m interpreting this right: If both picks are in the top-10, that means the Clippers will retain and use BOTH picks? Woah.

And our protected pick would roll into a 2013 pick. And that would continue each year until their pick is out of the top 10 or 2016, whichever comes first. Correct?

Doesn’t this sorta make it impossible for the Clippers to trade any future 1st round picks until after 2016?

For example they couldn’t next year create a deal with anyone where they trade their 2014 1st rounder. Until the Celtics finally get full rights to this pick in a particular year, they have conditional rights on every clipper first rounder through 2015. If the Clippers manage to stay out of the bottom 10 next year – and that wouldn’t be known until the end of the season and well after the trading deadline – then the pick would be vested and the Clippers could FINALLY start to use their future 1st rounders in trades during the 2012 summer at the earliest.

Seems dumb of the Clippers. They would probably have been better off just trading the rights outright or using a shorter protection window. Yes that gives more immediate value away. But it would have unencumbered the tradability of their future picks. Of course the CBA may have dictated the terms so I shouldn’t assume it was just stupidity on the Clippers’ part.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Feb 28, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

The Clippers can trade a #1 in two ways...

1. If they acquire another team’s first rounder, they’re free to trade their own; or

2. The Clippers can still make draft day trades, where they choose a player with their draft pick, and then trade his rights to another team.

You’re right, however: they’ve limited their flexibility.

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

by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 28, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions  

You could look at it both ways. If the Clippers actually get two top ten draftees, and with their current load of talent, they might soon be out of the lottery, and the Celtics would get a top 15-20 pick.

by European NBA fan on Feb 28, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

It is unlikely

The parsing of the sentence is a little odd, but I think what he meant is that it is unlikely that both Minnesota and the Clippers finish outside the top 10 of the draft (say Minnesota #11 and the Clips #13.) That is unlikely.

by egotistical ma on Feb 28, 2011 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry...

I fixed it. It should have said “lesser”, rather than “better”. I originally had “better record”, but changed that since a better record doesn’t ensure a better draft pick in the lottery system.

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

by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 28, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Invaluable work here

Great stuff, RH.

-sw

Grouchy Oscar

by Steve Weinman on Feb 28, 2011 11:02 AM EST reply actions  

And yeah, GREAT article, Roy.

Thanks.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Feb 28, 2011 11:07 AM EST reply actions  

this article clears things. the c’s chose baby over perk— i prefer perk as big men are always harder to find, but it’s a business.

by nazzbo on Feb 28, 2011 11:41 AM EST reply actions  

Will be happy when this is all settled

Really excited (anxious) to see the final team we have for the playoff run. Will miss Perk’s scowl but it’s time to move on.

by CelticsFan616 on Feb 28, 2011 12:04 PM EST reply actions  

Just wait

Until is Big Baby’s turn to negotiate a new contract….

by Ragetti on Feb 28, 2011 12:26 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Baby is a worse black hole than Perk will ever be

Perk is a far better defender than Baby will ever be
Baby is a much better offensive player overall than Perk will ever be

by vinnie on Feb 28, 2011 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

This is true to some extent.

But notwithstanding the small stretch of “hero” Davis fell into when he was plugged into the starting line up when Garnett went down, I think his shot selection has drastically improved of late. He’s passing up those long 18fters now, unless it’s late in the shot clock and there’s no other choice.

The rest is true, Davis’s defense is excellent, IMO, but limited by his size. He just doesn’t have the length to contest the turnaround, so players like Gasol, Dirk, Bynum, who can hit that turn around 10fter, he struggles against (Howard has developed that shot this year as well.) But Davis is very good at keeping the guy in front of him, and using his strength to force them into that shot. So his defense isn’t a complete liability, and I’ll take a guy hitting a 10ft jump shot rather than simply powering through other guys and getting lay ups/dunks.

"Phil is obviously a good coach. You don't win that many games without being a damn good coach, ... Remember one thing: He's been very fortunate. He picks his spots. That's all I can say." - Red Auerbach

by Sizzlack on Feb 28, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Just wanna talk about the Miami Heat

Lebron is ruining Dwyane Wade’s career!!
I used to really root for the Heat (I’m a BIG Wade fan). But ever since Lebron came aboard, I just can’t root for them

The Heat are trying to appease Lebron by acting like its “his team”. Giving him the ball in the final minutes when he’s no where near as clutch as Wade. Both players play the same style and are crowding each other. They have no advantage when they are both on the floor. Writers/pundits act as if this team is elite. Adding identical players makes them 1/2 + 1/2 in terms of impact, instead of 1+1. The fearless unrelenting Wade now looks lost and out of touch

by OsirusCeltics on Feb 28, 2011 12:31 PM EST reply actions  

I agree on Wade being more clutch than James

I don’t like both (Wade – because I am also a Nowitzki/Mavs fan; James – I just don’t like him). However, I can say that Wade is the more likeable one of the two.

If James having the ball on crunch time neutralizes Wade’s clutch ability, then so be it. That ugly situation for them is obviously good in our eyes. Let James have his way and lose them some games (especially during the playoffs)!

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot."

- Bill Russell

by Marjun Raposon on Feb 28, 2011 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Question

Regarding this from #7 above:

In a nutshell, we’re granted a $2.388 million salary slot to trade for a new player any time within the next year. The player we acquire must have a salary of no more than $100k above our full trade exception amount, or in this case $2.488 million total. Exceptions can’t be combined together, and they can’t be used to sign a free agent, although they can be used to pick a player up off waivers.

Can someone please explain the waiver process a bit more please? Is it possible we would utilize the 2.488M to try to acquire Murphy (or any other player on waivers) that way since it is my understanding bought out players then have 48 hours to clear waivers?

by King Coebra on Feb 28, 2011 12:44 PM EST reply actions  

Disregard

I just read up on waivers at the link provided at the end of the article and noticed we would have to take on the existing salary of the player which in Murphy’s case is ridiculously high.

Great read by the way. Thanks for clarifying some issues!

by King Coebra on Feb 28, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

It's certainly possible

If there was a player we really wanted, who we felt was going to sign somewhere else, this exception might be useful.

That said, since there are 48 hours to talk to a player before signing him, we should have a pretty good idea if there’s a mutual interest in the player coming here, and if so, better to save the exception. Waivers are reverse-order of standings, so we wouldn’t get priority ahead of anywone except the spurs. (Therefore, if we felt there was a player we would sign, and we thought the Spurs might put in a waiver claim, then we could put in our own waiver claim to trump the Spurs. But that is unlikely.)

by egotistical ma on Feb 28, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions  

there aren't THAT many players...

… earning less than $2.5 M that end up getting bought out or waived. Usually guys like Murphy who are still owed a lot more than that (if a guy’s a LLE or vet min player, what’s the point of buying them out?).

by theBird on Feb 28, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

However

It does appear that Rasual Butler’s contract would fit in that category – Hoopshype listing him at 2.4M. So we could conceivably utilize it to keep him from the Bulls since they don’t have cap room.

by King Coebra on Feb 28, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Good pickup, but doubt it will happen

If we wanted Butler (at $2.4M), wouldn’t we have just traded Quis (and $$) to the Clippers for him, instead of to the Kings?

by theBird on Feb 28, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe to get the draft pick?

Not answering. Just hypothesizing.

Trade to Sac to get the pick, use the trade exception to pick up Butler off waivers.

Net:

Daniels → Butler plus pick.

Assumes Danny knew the Bulls wouldn’t be able to make a similar move to create room – otherwise the Bulls could pluck him off the waivers ahead of us.

Also, its more flexible than the straight trade if we are lukewarm about Butler. If someone else grabs him, he still doesn’t go to the bulls and we use the exception elsewhere.

"We will take it easy, and walk on down our road at our pace with our focus ahead, and your focus on us." - Warrior Spirit, on what Celtics' Ubuntu is.

by mmmmm on Feb 28, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

I believe (but am not 100% certain)...

… that players picked up on waivers have to fit within the exception, and don’t get the $100k leeway. Therefore, a $2.4 million player like Butler wouldn’t fit under the $2.388 million exception. However, like I said, I’m not 100% sure on that.

Also, it’s important to remember that sites like shamsports and hoopshype aren’t always 100% accurate. Sometimes players have had bonuses factored in that change their salary incrementally.

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

by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 28, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Rasual Butler?

Reports are that he will sign with the Bulls; however, the Daniels exceptions WOULD cover his contract if we claimed him on waivers. Chances?

by Brian Yennie on Feb 28, 2011 1:15 PM EST reply actions  

Yeah

If there aren’t any/many other players bought out it definitely would make sense to add some depth and keep him away from a possible playoff opponent. I really don’t know that much about him though. Can he play the 2? Does he defend at all?

by King Coebra on Feb 28, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly my point. There seems to be no disagreement on the fact that Perk was not going to sign another K with the Celtics cause he reasonably believed he could get more money on the open market and he felt he owed it to himself to protect his family yara yara yara yara. I have no problem with that. Strictly a business interest for Perk= his family and himself had to betaken care of and He was going to do it. SO, Whats the dicontentment with Danny? Under these pending reasonable business interests of Perk, who thought he was the last Coca Cola in the desert , Danny traded him and got something in return. Most of you guys are going after Danny as if he did the unthinkable. No, he did what the situation dictated. Thats all. At the end of the day; Danny didnt start the fire; he just put it out. Good

by Dantenina on Feb 28, 2011 5:22 PM EST reply actions  

About Dallas

Dallas got an exception because of the Butler injury. There has been talk about using that to get Brewer as a free agent. Butler also stated that he is only a few weeks from returning. How can Dallas do this? Also coudn’t we have done the same for JO or West for their injuries?

by Yogesh Raghunathan on Mar 2, 2011 4:40 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

CelticsBlog is a growing interactive community dedicated to providing fresh, comprehensive coverage of the Boston Celtics.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Mchale_small
Can the C's Cool Down the Heat?
Small
Fourth Quarter of Game 7: A Glimpse of the Future with Rondo?
Small
Is Rondo out of his mind? Or just on some other level?
Celticslogo_small
The All Idiot Team
Giflogocolorsmall_small
Just Like Old Times...
Images_small
What Philly Fans Are Saying
Ray_breaks_record_3_small
Last chance
Small
If this is it....
Small
Any Havlicek Signs in Martins Ferry, OH?
Small
MVP's in Game7

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


CEO

Shamrock-blk-trans_small Jeff Clark

Authors/Editors

Hoosiers-dvdcover_small Roy_Hobbs

300h_small Wide Load

Big_4_small Jimmy Toscano

Leon_powe_small Green17

Ud_small Tom Bellinger

Grawful3_small Kiorrik

Authors/Mods

1_koolaid_avi_small FLCeltsFan

Po3_small Master Po

Images_small Bent

Green_avatar_small Fafnir

Small Tom Halzack

N23879518902_8484_small Jon Duke - CSL

Small jose3030

5bill_small Jack Jemsek

Small wjsy

Small Ryan Desmarais

250_small Brendan O'Hare

1119816_small JoshZavadil

Small TLayman

Small Anthony_Bruzzese

Small theoriginalhagrid

Sheed_small evansclinchy

Moderators

Photo_14_small Steve Weinman

Too_much_coffe_man_small Edgar

Small Chris72

Small thirstyboots18

Small CfanMissippi