Re: Official Paul Pierce 2010 Offseason thread

[gyso]

Jeb,

All part of being a fan...

or is it, fanatic?

[112288]

Jeb,

The Celtics were getting old. If 2008 team played LA we win in 5 games. Everyone was questioning what's wrong with Ray. He's old, his legs get tired early and that causes him not have the vertical lift for his shots. Put it in easy terms, his shots were flat. It happens to all the great shooters. So if we sign younger stars we will be saying Paul Who if we are back in the finals in a year or two.

112288

[bobheckler]

Interesting excerpt from Hoopsworld article inre Pierce getting a longterm contract. This makes anybody signing Pierce to a longterm contract, or Ray Allen to even a medium term contract, expensive as far as baseyear salaries and the signing of future free agents.

Pierce will be 33 years old in October, and the current collective bargaining agreement penalizes the Celtics for every year past Pierce's 36th year, under the Over-36 Rule. In essence the rule establishes that every year past 36 is deemed unlikely and called deferred compensation and gets charged into the years prior to 36. So The Celtics face a massive cap hit on a long-term deal.

Any thoughts on this, gyso?


bob

.

[RosalieTCeltics]

You are right there, I would not want to be the one trying to force Danny Ainge's hand. We are all looking at this as fans, money does funny things to people. I would be nervous about teams like NY and the Clippers, even the Nets, that guy has money falling out of his pockets. If they lose out in the big race, they have to come up with something for their fans. Wouldn't it be something if we lost Paul AND Ray to NY or NJ? What a nightmare. I can't imagine they would want to finish out their careers this way. They waited so
long to play on a team that had the potential of winning championships, and they accomplished so much. I wish I had the problem of deciding which team I would go to and who was throwing the most at me!!

I still believe both will sign with the Celtics, and finish their careers here.

Gyso: Is there a no trade clause in any contract in the NBA?

[jeb]

11

Nope aint playin that. Ray Allen had to guard Kobe damn Bryant. Remember how old PP looked against Cleve? And Ray also forced Kobe into a terrible game 7. Which as a team we failed to take advantage of. I see a lot of this crap about how if Ray aint shootin good he is worthless. I don t buy it. At all. Ray did not have a good game seven at all on o. In fact he hurt us. But you cant tell me he didnt d up Kobe. who is deadly is deadly in pressure situations.

I mean sure we are getting older. But we also damn near won the damn thing. So this Mazz guy gets no free pass from me. Clearly he went troll after we lost. Started feeding the wrong dog he did.

[bobheckler]

You are right there, I would not want to be the one trying to force Danny Ainge's hand. We are all looking at this as fans, money does funny things to people. I would be nervous about teams like NY and the Clippers, even the Nets, that guy has money falling out of his pockets. If they lose out in the big race, they have to come up with something for their fans. Wouldn't it be something if we lost Paul AND Ray to NY or NJ? What a nightmare. I can't imagine they would want to finish out their careers this way. They waited so
long to play on a team that had the potential of winning championships, and they accomplished so much. I wish I had the problem of deciding which team I would go to and who was throwing the most at me!!

I still believe both will sign with the Celtics, and finish their careers here.

Gyso: Is there a no trade clause in any contract in the NBA?

rosalie,

If I may attempt to answer the question you posed to gyso (because I just read it in the Hoopsworld article), to get a "no trade" clause in your contract, you have to be in the league a minimum of 8 years and be with the same team for a minimum of 4.

Pierce and Nowitzki both qualify.

bob

[bobheckler]

11

Nope aint playin that. Ray Allen had to guard Kobe damn Bryant. Remember how old PP looked against Cleve? And Ray also forced Kobe into a terrible game 7. Which as a team we failed to take advantage of. I see a lot of this crap about how if Ray aint shootin good he is worthless. I don t buy it. At all. Ray did not have a good game seven at all on o. In fact he hurt us. But you cant tell me he didnt d up Kobe. who is deadly is deadly in pressure situations.

I mean sure we are getting older. But we also damn near won the damn thing. So this Mazz guy gets no free pass from me. Clearly he went troll after we lost. Started feeding the wrong dog he did.

jeb,

"Started feeding the wrong dog he did."

Man, you slay me, you really do.

bob

.

[RosalieTCeltics]

Thank you Bob!

[112288]

Pierce Opts Out Too: As we covered in this space on Monday with Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki, there are benefits to opting out of a $21.5 million contract year and Boston's Paul Pierce is looking at his.

According to Pierce's agent Jeff Schwartz, Pierce will forego the final year of his contract and leave $21.5 million on the table. The upside is he is now eligible to sign a new deal in Boston with a starting salary of $21.8 million and can receive 10.5% raises based on that number, and like Nowitzki, Pierce can now lobby for a "no-trade" clause.

To receive a no-trade clause, you must be in the league at least eight seasons and you must have played for the same team or under the same contract for four consecutive years. Pierce and Nowitzki both meet those criteria.

Now here is the real question – Boston is currently sitting on over $67.7 million in salary commitments, making them a Luxury tax team as they sit with just nine players (including Pierce; $46.1 million without him).

Is locking Pierce into a new long-term deal good business for Boston?

If the Celtics were to renounce the rights to free agent Ray Allen and to Paul Pierce the Celtics can get as much as $10 million under the salary cap and still have several tradable assets to re-tool with potential sign-and-trade scenarios.

If the Celtics decide not to meet Pierce's asking price, can they get assets or a sizable Traded Player Exception back in return?

Sure the ideal scenario is that the "Big Three" are brought back for another run at the NBA Finals, but if Ray Allen isn't willing to take a pay cut and Pierce's camp demands a new maximum deal – a new MAX 5 five-year deal is worth $131.8 million – would the Celtics be smarter to pass?

Pierce will be 33 years old in October, and the current collective bargaining agreement penalizes the Celtics for every year past Pierce's 36th year, under the Over-36 Rule. In essence the rule establishes that every year past 36 is deemed unlikely and called deferred compensation and gets charged into the years prior to 36. So The Celtics face a massive cap hit on a long-term deal.

Celtics' president Danny Ainge said recently that he was unsure of Paul's plans, and that he thought Paul could get more money elsewhere, hinting that the Celtics might not offer the kind of salary Paul could be seeking.

Like Nowitzki in Dallas, Paul's best financial package still comes from the Celtics.

The question is will the Celtics give him more than the free agent market will pay and is it even smart for the Celtics to invest in Pierce again at 33 and coming off his worst scoring average since his rookie year?

The Celtics know full well that the team may not have Head Coach Doc Rivers back and there may be no better time to do a radical re-tooling than this summer.

Did Pierce do the Celtics a big favor? It sure seems like it.

Decision Time In Denver: For a few weeks now there has been a growing consensus that if Denver All-Star Carmelo Anthony does not agree to the team's three-year, $65 million contract extension the team will in all likelihood trade the mercurial star rather than subject themselves to what Cleveland, Miami and Toronto went through last year.




NBA Rumors Chat With Steve Kyler: HOOPSWORLD Publisher Steve Kyler will hold his weekly chat at 11am EST on...
NBA AM: Are The Cavs Playing Hard Ball?: Are the Cleveland Cavaliers trying to play tough with LeBron James?... The ...
NBA AM: Joe Johnson A Knick?: Hawks' guard Joe Johnson's first meeting in free agency may be with the...
View Steve Kyler Archive
The status of the talks have been on again and off again, but in the days leading up to the 2010 NBA Draft the Nuggets had more than a few conversations about dealing Carmelo.
Now let's be clear, Denver is not trading Carmelo Anthony for a bunch of cast-off players. It will take real value for the Nuggets to move Carmelo, and as teams swing and miss on major free agents there is a real chance for the Nuggets to not only extract a couple of promising players, they may also return a sizable Traded Player Exception which would allow them to get into the free agent hunt.

The first goal is to lock Carmelo up - that's where the effort is right now according to sources. But as the clock gets closer to midnight, it's time for Carmelo's camp to make a decision.

If they pass on the deal, don't be surprised to see Carmelo shopped as part of a sign-and-trade deal or sold outright to a team with cap space.

What is Max Worth? The NBA won't officially set the 2010-2011 Salary structure until July 7th, but its commonly believed the new salary cap figure is going to fall right around $56.1 million. That will be a slight drop from last year's $57.7 million.

The NBA's Maximum salary is based on a percentage of the salary cap and on the number of years you have been in the NBA. Players that have 0 to 6 years of experience can receive up to 25% of the salary cap figure. Players with 7 to 9 years of experience can receive up to 30% of the salary cap, while players with 10 or more years of experience can receive up to 35% of the salary cap.

Players that stay with their own team or execute sign-and-trade deals as a free agent can sign a maximum deal for six years and can receive raises of 10.5%. Players that simply walk away can only sign five-year deals and can receive a maximum of 8% raises.

The raise amount is computed on the first year of the deal, and added every year in a max deal. Raises are not automatically included in a deal - players and teams negotiate the structure of every payment.

With free agency opening in less than 15 hours, we thought it would be fruitful to illustrate exactly what a maximum contract would look like based on a $56.1 million salary cap.

Leaves 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total value
0 to 6 Years $14,025,000 $15,147,000 $16,269,000 $17,391,000 $18,513,000 $81,345,000
7 to 9 Years $16,830,000 $18,176,400 $19,522,800 $20,869,200 $22,215,600 $97,614,000
Stays or S&T 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total value
0 to 6 Years $14,025,000 $15,497,625 $16,970,250 $18,442,875 $19,915,500 $21,388,125 $106,239,375
7 to 9 Years $16,830,000 $18,597,150 $20,364,300 $22,131,450 $23,898,600 $25,665,750 $127,487,250
Pierce/Nowitzki $21,800,000 $24,089,000 $26,378,000 $28,667,000 $30,956,000 $131,890,000
The annual maximum raises for players who walk away from their existing teams are $1.12 million per year for players with 0 to 6 years of experience and $1.34 million for players with 7 to 9 years of experience.

Players who stay with their existing team or execute a sign-and-trade deal can receive a maximum annual raise of $1.47 million for players with 0 to 6 years of experience and $1.76 million for players with 7 to 9 years of experience.

Should Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce sign MAX level deals with Dallas and Boston respective, they would each be eligible for annual raises of $2.28 million each year.

Teams can begin talking with players at Midnight EST on July 1st, new agreements can be verbally agreed to, but contracts cannot be "signed" until July 8th.

[jeb]

Bobheck

Yeah it's good to be posting again...hadda have some time to heal up that massive head wound. At the end of the day I am proud of last years man. They damn near won it. Neither team blinked under heavy heavy pressure.

[Sam]

Rosalie,

Baby Sky let us off the Hook and said we could quit the avatars the day free agency starts (tomorrow). Actually, he tried to convince us to enter into a long-term contract whereby we'd root for the Lakers every year but we'd only have to display their avatars for two days each year. But we decided to re-sign with the Celtics.

I did my best by showing only Elgin's butt in street clothes; and I sure miss Sam under all those banners. It'll be good to get back to normal.

Sam

[112288]

Jeb,

Not saying Ray is worthless. Ray exhausted all his energy on Byrant which took away from his shooting game. After Game #2 Ray had 5 so so to bad games.

Ray makes sense off the bench or splitting time with another sharp shooter, but the key is you have to cut his minutes down.

112288

[jeb]

11

On that we agree. It's up to him. If he really wants to be here he can take less dough and face reality. Or he can go for the money.

[gyso]

Interesting excerpt from Hoopsworld article inre Pierce getting a longterm contract. This makes anybody signing Pierce to a longterm contract, or Ray Allen to even a medium term contract, expensive as far as baseyear salaries and the signing of future free agents.

Pierce will be 33 years old in October, and the current collective bargaining agreement penalizes the Celtics for every year past Pierce's 36th year, under the Over-36 Rule. In essence the rule establishes that every year past 36 is deemed unlikely and called deferred compensation and gets charged into the years prior to 36. So The Celtics face a massive cap hit on a long-term deal.

Any thoughts on this, gyso?


bob

.

Bob,

The Base Year Compensation (BYC) rule and subsequent penalty only comes into play when a raise of over 20% is given. I don't think that will apply here, Paul and Ray are not getting raises. Or am I not getting the question?

The "Over 36 rule" is how Sheed's buyout/retire may go down. He was born on Sept. 17, 1974. If my math is correct, he will turn 36 this year. This exact scenario may have been discussed prior to Sheed signing on. The Celtics say, "Sheed, play for us one year. You can call it quits after one season and get paid more to boot. All you have to do is wait awhile after the season is over so we can try to trade you and your cap relief to another team and gain a free asset." Not in those exact words, but close.

Here is how I understand it (or misunderstand it, as the case may be):

Here is one thing I read:

An "Over 36 Player" has his contract paid out, year to year, like a regular contract, as long as the player is still playing. If the player does retire before the contract is completed (in the season he becomes 36, at the earliest), the remaining salary gets charged to the last season he played in. In other words, the cap hit happens to the team salary for the season currently in our rear-view mirrors!!!

Here is another thing I read:

A buyout can happen, so the final salary cap hit can be minimized. This number was discussed by Gary Washburn recently and he said 3 mil. Sheed's contract can be traded for full value and he can be bought out for about half.

I don't know how both of these scenarios could work together. Maybe a little of each. It's hard to find the truth.

I may know more later after watching Sheed's situation go down. That's how I figured out the BYC/Three team thing, watching a couple examples in the real world. Or I could take the time to read the rule and the FAQ about it.

gyso

[babyskyhook]

Jeb,

The Celtics were getting old. If 2008 team played LA we win in 5 games. Everyone was questioning what's wrong with Ray. He's old, his legs get tired early and that causes him not have the vertical lift for his shots. Put it in easy terms, his shots were flat. It happens to all the great shooters. So if we sign younger stars we will be saying Paul Who if we are back in the finals in a year or two.

112288

11-

I agree w/ Jeb. MOst of Ray's shooting woes in the latter part of the series IMO can be traced to him guarding Kobe all game and doing a tremendous job of it.

Also- It wasn't just the Cs who were different from '08- the Lakers are an entirely different team mentally and in terms of their physical toughness and defense.

PLus- Cs really missed House, Powe and Posey. While Lakers benefitted greatly from having Ron Ron, A semi-healthy Bynum and even Shannon Brown- none of whom played in '08.


I think it would be a huge mistake for the Cs to blow it all up. They just lost on the road in game 7 of the Finals with a thin bench and the starters playing too many minutes. To me- the solution isn't replace the starters- it's strengthen the bench.

[gyso]

49. What is the "Over-36" rule?

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q49

Suppose a player is nearing retirement, and he wants to finish his career with a team that can only offer him their Mid-Level exception. If they want to give the player more money than the Mid-Level exception would allow, then there is a potential loophole they could exploit by signing a contract for more years than they expect the player to play.

For example, suppose the Mid-Level exception is $5 million. With 8% raises, a four-year contract would total $22.4 million. But if they added a fifth year to the contract, the total salary would be $29 million. If the player retires after four seasons and continues drawing his salary for the additional season, he will effectively be paid $29 million for four years' work. In essence, they are giving the player a four year contract with additional deferred compensation.

This loophole is closed by the Over-36 rule.

Certain long-term contracts that extend past the player's 36th birthday are deemed Over-36 contracts. In an Over-36 contract, the presumption is that the seasons at the end of the contract are likely to come after the player retires. Therefore, they are classified as deferred compensation as described above. This is significant because deferred compensation is charged to the salary cap in the year it is earned, not the year it is paid.

There is more.............................

[RosalieTCeltics]

very interesting.

[Sam]

I just hope Danny doesn't get controlled by circumstances. He's going to have to be as swift and decisive as possible because the second-tier free agents (his only realistic possibilities) will disappear quickly—probably in order of their quality. I'm glad he's meeting with Paul's agent soon, but I'm afraid that saga could stretch out for a while. As could Rays, with so many teams potentially regarding him as a fallback position if they miss out on the real "biggies."

I think Ray and Paul have obviously accomplished great things in Celtics uniforms. But simply wanting them back together for the sake of auld lang syne could be a bit shortsighted.

1. I think it's true that Paul was deenergized in the Cavs series by having to guard Lebron and the same fate happened to Ray vs. Kobe in the Lakers series. But having to guard great scorers is part of the game; and, if it sapped offensive energy enough to make the difference in the last four minutes of Game 7, it's a mighty big difference. It's like the same guys (and let's not forget Wade) will be roadblocks next year as well; and they'll still have to be guarded fiercely; and they'll still drain energy. Are a deenergized Pierce and Ray enough to help carry the Celtics offense?

2. For three years, there's been an increasingly noticeable schism in the Celtics offense. Rondo's upbeat game vs. Pierce's deliberate game have devolved into the irresistible force versus the immovable object. Doc and associates have found ways for them to coexist, with the net balance moving a bit more in Rondo's direction in each successive season. And perhaps the coaches will find a way to make it work again. But, at some point, I'm afraid the collision course will make the offense increasingly sluggish at the most inopportune times. In fact (and I hate to say this), we could well have seen an example at the end of Game 7. Rondo's three-pointer was a wonderful, gutsy, gratefully received respite; but I don't really believe it was appropriate to the situation only because the situation had become desperate.

3. IF Pierce goes elsewhere (and I suspect he won't), it will mean the two slowest and most frequent ball-stoppage guys among the Celtics starters will be missing for at least a portion of the season. IF they've replaced Paul with a more athletic, defensively inclined guy who can stick the midrange jumper....and, IF they've replaced Perk with someone like Brad Miller who can slide in and out of the post and can be a threat in either case....at least it will be interesting to see what a more mobile (meaning people and ball movement), fluid offense will look like. It's harder to conjecture about the defense because who knows how that will evolve with Thibs gone?

4. My real point in all this meandering is that basketball teams are (among many other things) a series of tradeoffs. What are each player's strengths versus his weaknesses—and by how much do the former outstrip the latter? More important, what are the collective strengths versus weaknesses of the entire rotation, and by how much is the plurality positive or negative?

I'm not lobbying for any particular result in this game of musical players because I generally believe in letting Danny do his job; and I figure my job is to support for the results of his moves in the most positive possible way. But I do agree with Mazz (whom I find to have very logical insights for the most part) that, whatever happens, we shouldn't jump at first impressions as to whether the eventual team configuration is a winner or a loser.

Go Celtics!

Sam

[babyskyhook]

What's weird about that article Sam is that the writer seems to have no concept that Paul opting out and staying with the Cs is the most likely scenario, and that anyone in a similar situation would do it to ensure he had a few more years left under the old CBA.

Seems like the writer has already thrown Pierce away, and I think unfairly.

[mrkleen09]

Tony Mazz wouldn't know a basketball if I pegged it at his head (which I would like to do) - I take ANYTHING he says about ANYTHING that isnt football with a grain of salt. Actually, less than a grain of salt - since I think the guy is a dope.

I think this is where Paul Pierce cements his all time Celtic legacy. Does he resign for less - helping the team to clear some cap room to sign a few solid young players? Or does he leave to try and maximize his earning potential?

If he leaves, he is still a fantastic Celtic and a HOF - but the greatest of the greats RETIRED HERE. Waiting to see what happens.

[NYCelt]

I think this is where Paul Pierce cements his all time Celtic legacy. Does he resign for less - helping the team to clear some cap room to sign a few solid young players? I hope so.

If he leaves, he is still a fantastic Celtic and a HOF - but the greatest of the greats RETIRED HERE. Waiting to see what happens. I'm with you.

[Sam]

Mrkleen,

Isn't Mazz' specialty baseball, not football? He had a baseball column for years. I listen to him fairly extensively on radio, as well as reading his newspaper work. Seldom have I seen him factually wrong, and I've already referenced the high degree of logic that's inherent in most of his comments.

gyso,

I don't believe he's either failing to recognize Pierce could very well still be here or dissing Pierce. I think there's a little bit of shooting the messenger here. The other day, I thought Gerry Callahan went way too far in saying something to the effect that Ainge would be doing us a favor by renouncing Paul. But there is a possibility that Paul could bolt; and Mazz is simply presenting a reason why people shouldn't necessarily panic regardless of what eventuates. I agree with him

Sam

[NYCelt]

Sam,

Your analysis (above at 3:09 pm) is well thought out and hits several great points as always.

Despite the fact that Pierce is in no way going to be part of an uptempo offense we could now build I still think he can remain a serious scoring threat in our current system for a couple of years. Beyond that my hope that he stays is also driven as a fan who would hate to see him in any other uniform.

What I liked about Massarotti's article was that he pointed out that we've got some potential here either way. Though some like me would like to make another run with the same core of starters intact and a re-vamped bench, there are other ways to go.

I think you're quite correct in saying that there should be no conclusions drawn either way until the team, whatever it looks like, has time to gel.

Interesting day for the team today. Even my wife has been forwarding one email after the other as news breaks.

Regards

[gyso]

Mrkleen,

Isn't Mazz' specialty baseball, not football? He had a baseball column for years. I listen to him fairly extensively on radio, as well as reading his newspaper work. Seldom have I seen him factually wrong, and I've already referenced the high degree of logic that's inherent in most of his comments.

gyso,

I don't believe he's either failing to recognize Pierce could very well still be here or dissing Pierce. I think there's a little bit of shooting the messenger here. The other day, I thought Gerry Callahan went way too far in saying something to the effect that Ainge would be doing us a favor by renouncing Paul. But there is a possibility that Paul could bolt; and Mazz is simply presenting a reason why people shouldn't necessarily panic regardless of what eventuates. I agree with him

Sam

Sam,

This is my first post on this thread. So, I don't understand your reference to me.

I do have to say that my second read of Mazz's article went down better than my hurried first read.

gyso

[Sam]

NYC,

IF a restructuring of Pierce's contract, cogent use of Sheed's contract, a downsized deal for Ray, and the mid-level exception, coupled with some vets' minimum contracts, could bring three solid role players to accompany last year's core in a way that could earn serious rest for the Three Amigos, I could be happy with it. That's one path I'd hope would lesson the physical toll on Paul and Ray from having to guard elite scorers; otherwise, why wouldn't it just get worse?

This could mean routine, liberal use of as much as a 10-man rotation, right through the playoffs. I'd be fine with that as long as all 10 had been exposed to sufficient experience with the system (not just spot time or injury replacement stints) to be comfortable in the system. Just as I felt that the yin and yang of discontinuity and team chemistry was an ongoing issue from Christmas until April last season, I could envision the integration of key new roster additions (including a replacement starting center) being of paramount importance this season.

Moreover, I continue to be haunted by memories of periods when the starting offense became stagnant, especially because I have the feeling the condition is sometimes because they're not all on the same page in terms of their stylistic preferences. (Fatigue may also play a role, which is the main reason why I would like Paul and Ray to be rested considerably more.)

Ironically, I thought last season's team closely resembled (in composition) Celtics teams near the end of Bill Russell's career. This year, I'm hoping it will more closely resemble Celtics teams nearer the beginning of Russ's career—with two reserve sparkplugs joining the starting center, KG and Rondo to ramp up the tempo and disorganize the opponent's starting offense starting at maybe the 7-minute mark and resting Paul and Ray.

Giving Paul and Ray that 5-minute rest, wrapped around the quarter break, while creating enemy debilitation and disarray as the other three Celtics starters are gradually replaced by the bench, would surely put a smile on my face. And I'd repeat the move in the third quarter.

Sam

[Sponsored content]