Report: Pierce expects to be traded or released

[Chief Macho]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

[lightspeed5]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

stoudemires being paid 20 mill right now to play 5 min a game.

[krook]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

stoudemires being paid 20 mill right now to play 5 min a game.

agree, if i'm a GM of the east lets say cleveland who does not have a SF, i pay pierce 15m as long as he gave me 18 to 24 points a game 6 to 8 rebounds and 6 to 8 assist, never mind the turnovers, what matters is veteran leadership, and experienced that is what the team lacks off, even OKC needs fisher and perkins championship winners, just to mentor them

biedrin
kaman
walton
stoudamaire
ellis
turgoklu
kwame brown
haywood

etcs;

these guys are overpaid
i'm with pierce in any team
even nba 2k13 video game shows it, pierce can score
even what team you placed him there
even beisde lebron or durant, he can still score
as long as he contributes, i'll take him

[ejk3489]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

[LooseCannon]

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age.  The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE.  A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.

[krook]

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age.  The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE.  A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.

cleveland and golden state will pay pierce max? agree?

[ejk3489]

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age.  The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE.  A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.

That's true. I could see Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee (& maybe WAS/PHI/ATL?) paying Pierce a decent contract though (say $8-$10mil). But you're right, the market is pretty limited at the moment...and I think Pierce would prefer to stay on the West Coast i.e. GSW/LAC/SA (assuming Boston wasn't an option), so his choices are pretty slim.

[kozlodoev]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

We live in a world where there are some bad contracts in the NBA... When was it any different?

Also, the business decision that's being made is not as simple as you describe it. You can either have Pierce and pay $15 million, or have nothing and pay $5 million.

So you're pretty much effectively paying Pierce $10 million to play, as the $5 are a sunk cost. Notwithstanding the fact that you can't replace him with anything other than a minimum contract signing.

[green7]

i don't think letting pierce go is a smart move, he just needs a manu role imo a offensive spark off the bench while green starts.

let pierce and garnett play out there contracts, and try to find deals for lee,bass,crawford and maybe terry

This is a lot better than tanking ^

[feckless]

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

Yes, mainly because of Pierce's age.  The sort of team that would most want to sign him would be a contender, which is unlikely to be able to offer more than the MLE.  A team with cap space is more likely to be a bad team with a decent chance that they would rather tank than sign a player such as Pierce.

cleveland and golden state will pay pierce max? agree?

I don't agree!  Cleveland doesn't pay anyone max except Lebron, Durant or a young future prospect that they build around.

Golden State has talent galore and needs to figure out how to keep some of them-- no need for PP--he will not put them over the top, especially at $15mil.

Only place PP goes is a veteran team who wants one more shot and will sacrifice some youth for that chance.  Celtics have the same decision to make!

[CapnDunks]

lala lala not Listening. This thread makes me queasy.

[j804]

lala lala not Listening. This thread makes me queasy.

+1

[CelticConcourse]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

Boston....?

[Tgro]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

We live in a world where Rudy Gay makes $16mil/year, Humphries $12 mil/year, Boozer $15mil/year, Ben Gordon $17mil/year...would it really be shocking if a team offered Pierce a contract similar to what he'll be making next year?

We live in a world where there are some bad contracts in the NBA... When was it any different?

Also, the business decision that's being made is not as simple as you describe it. You can either have Pierce and pay $15 million, or have nothing and pay $5 million.

So you're pretty much effectively paying Pierce $10 million to play, as the $5 are a sunk cost. Notwithstanding the fact that you can't replace him with anything other than a minimum contract signing.

Made up my mind. Not that I ever thought anything else unless some miracle dream trade fell in our lap.....

Keep him.

[CelticConcourse]

well,  pierce certainly isn't getting paid 15 million next year.  anywhere.  he just isn't worth that kind of money to any businessman.

Boston...?