If Pierce opts out he's a RESTRICTED free agent???

[kozlodoev]

He would do us a huge favor if he opts out and accepts say a 3 yr $12 a year contract.

That would allow us to resign ray, tony and Nate

We can resign Ray, Tony and Nate regardless of what Pierce does. So that's pretty irrelevant.

[thedawg]

I don't think Pierce will opt out. The most I could see him getting on a multi-year contract is 10-12 million per. I also don't see many teams willing to pay him for more than 3 years. He isn't going to age as gracefully as Ray I'm positive of that.

If we could get Ray to resign for a much lesser contract (1-2 yrs) and Paul Pierce to renegotiate his contract to 2 yrs; totalling 30m, then we could be in a good situation. We need some cap space to get new players.

[Roy Hobbs]

99% sure this is incorrect. Amare will be an unrestricted FA if he opts out, as will Paul....

Exactly what I thought and assumed. But you know what assuming can do to you. And while it makes 100% sense that he would unrestricted and this is just a mistake on the author's part, you never know.

The only free agents who are restricted are players coming off the fourth season of their rookie deals, or other veteran players with three seasons or less of experience.

So, the author either made a typo or doesn't understand the CBA.

[ManUp]

I don't think Pierce will opt out. The most I could see him getting on a multi-year contract is 10-12 million per. I also don't see many teams willing to pay him for more than 3 years. He isn't going to age as gracefully as Ray I'm positive of that.

Well that's interesting point. Partly I agree that Ray has aged well but, I also think Pierce's old school (below the rim) game will allow him to play well even with the inevitable dip in athletic ability. Also Ray is very hit or miss but, he is also a few years older than Paul.  I think people look at their bodies and see how cut up ray is and Pauls body type and it partially distorts reality. Paul like BBDs body type has been same or even better now then when they were in college.

In theory Pierce's game should age well, but the thing is Pierce's body might not be able to keep up. This season he seems to be a slower less willing slasher and he struggles to get the separation and lift on his fade away(which used to be absolutely money not so much these days). Sure injuries might have played a role, but the fact is that he's slipping and we know there will be more injuries, but we don't know how he'll recover. Not to mention the injuries that come with driving the ball and getting knocked around. You also see him coasting and saving energy during games just so he can finish strong. Last season when we had him and Ray carry us to the play-offs Pierce had run out of gas. He's simply not the same player he once was.

[billysan]

No question that neither Paul Pierce nor Ray Allen should be making anywhere near starter money in 3 years, likely that also could apply in 2 years for one or both.

If they (and the Celtics) are smart, they both sign for healthy front loaded 3 year 30 million deals with lots of performance and 4th year options starting in year three. Ray may even get only 2 years with options starting a year earlier. You can bet that KG is watching closely and calculating how he thinks he will be treated based on Ray's deal. Should be interesting this off season.

The reality is we likely sign Paul for too much money and watch him grow old/retire as a Celtic. That is going to be an ownership call and could be weighted by his attitude about team financial needs (behind closed doors) going forward.

And I wouldn't mind if that happened, even if it seems like overpaying for a star past his prime.  Pierce has given so much to this franchise and having him retire gracefully as a Celtic all-time great (I believe that, even if he only has one ring) would be the honorable thing to do.  Winning is not everything.

Why would throwing away money be honorable? Pierce has been paid well here. I don't think the team owes him any freebies. This team spent a lot of money to surround him with a competitive team.

This is not the time to overpay him on an extended deal.

TP.  He's been getting max money for quite a few years now.  I think the team has paid him well for what he's provided.  If either party has some emotional-type of obligation to give the other a break, it's PP giving the C's a huge discount so he can retire a Celtic without the team reflecting a losing has-been status as he ages/declines.  This town loves a winner.

I'm not sure how much he's willing to leave on the table, though...one can only give up so many millions of dollars.  Perhaps assurance of a post-retirement job with the team would help him stay "home" here?

While I agree in principle that Paul should make the concession to retire as a Celtic, I do think the team should allow him to do that gracefully as a reward for his loyalty. This just sets a great example IMO to other players about the 'class' of an organization. Could be an important factor come FA time when we want to sign a quality 'Vet' for a little less than market value.

[makaveli]

IMO Pierce will retire in Boston, even playing for free

[jambr380]

I see Pierce extending this off-season, but I am not so sure he will retire with the Celtics being his only team...technically. It is very possible, especially if this team wants to remain competitive, that in the last year of Paul's next contract, we trade him to a team that immediately buys him out and then we re-sign him after 30 days (like Zydrunas). I am all for having him forever, but I also like the idea of acquiring a 'Jamison-like' talent for him in his old age, then re-signing him again.

[aporel#18]

I see Pierce extending this off-season, but I am not so sure he will retire with the Celtics being his only team...technically. It is very possible, especially if this team wants to remain competitive, that in the last year of Paul's next contract, we trade him to a team that immediately buys him out and then we re-sign him after 30 days (like Zydrunas). I am all for having him forever, but I also like the idea of acquiring a 'Jamison-like' talent for him in his old age, then re-signing him again.

I don't think they are doing it to Paul. Cleveland's attitude towards Zydrunas has been unclassy, and I don't believe you can compare Z with Pierce in terms of value. I don't think the Celtics would trade Pierce for a Jamison-caliber player with such an ugly contract.

I guess they'll extend him for 4 years, compensating the money he's going to give up next year. Then they can keep a team option for that fourth year, reach an agreement on retirement... they would have some flexibility after KG and (hopefully RA's) contract expire.

[nickagneta]

I see Pierce extending this off-season, but I am not so sure he will retire with the Celtics being his only team...technically. It is very possible, especially if this team wants to remain competitive, that in the last year of Paul's next contract, we trade him to a team that immediately buys him out and then we re-sign him after 30 days (like Zydrunas). I am all for having him forever, but I also like the idea of acquiring a 'Jamison-like' talent for him in his old age, then re-signing him again.

I don't think they are doing it to Paul. Cleveland's attitude towards Zydrunas has been unclassy, and I don't believe you can compare Z with Pierce in terms of value. I don't think the Celtics would trade Pierce for a Jamison-caliber player with such an ugly contract.

I guess they'll extend him for 4 years, compensating the money he's going to give up next year. Then they can keep a team option for that fourth year, reach an agreement on retirement... they would have some flexibility after KG and (hopefully RA's) contract expire.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but due to an over 36 rule the largest contract or extension Pierce can be offered is 3 years. I think.