Would Pierce opt out to go home?

[More Banners]

What is our cap flexibility if both Allen and Pierce leave?

I think, if we renouced all our FA's, we'd have 5 players under contract for around $42 million, plus cap holds for draft picks (roughly $46 million) and with 6 roster spaces to fill, we'd have about $10 million to be still under the cap...meaning, to stay under, we'd have to fill out the roster with guys like TA, Shelden, and a bunch of minimum contract players.

Could we make the playoffs with a roster of Rondo/TA/Rookie/KG/Perk, with Sheed, BBD, Shelden, and minimum contract players off the bench?  Could Rondo and what's left of KG get us to the 8th seed at least?  Actually, I think they might...

But there wouldn't be enough money to get a talented FA this year.

This is pretty close. Yes there are 5 players with $42.1 million on the books. The only cap hold the Celtics would have for a draft pick would be their first rounder which at around the 20th pick would be about $1.2 million. That's $43.3. You have to have at least 13 roster spots filled or with cap holds. So if we renounce every free agent and then use the minimum salary cap hold for the other seven roster spots(about $900,000) or about $6 million.

That puts the Celtics best case scenario for being under the cap at $49.3 million with just KG, Rondo, Rasheed, Baby, Perk and their first round pick being on the team and cap space less than the MLE which they won't have because they would be under the cap because the estimates have the cap being put at about $54 million or less.

They are better off with Pierce and being over the cap and having the MLE to spend and not renouncing their free agents.

Thanks for clearing up the cap stuff, Nick, TP to you for good math.

The last bit, though...I'm not sure what "better off" means for the C's right now.  No question that, talent-wise, keeping Ray and Paul next to KG is our best talent option, but if it means the next two seasons look like the last three months, I'll pass.  I see no reason to go over the cap to have a .500ish team, a 45-50 win team as they age further.  It's probably what will happen, but still...why bother (besides marketing/riding that horse 'til it flops over).

I wouldn't be surprised if Rondo/KG (at the 5), with Perk traded for a competent scoring wing, and guys like TA and Shelden brought back for short money (like they make now)...I don't think that team would be all that much worse than 45-50 wins in the east, while having playing time to develop or showcase a youngin' or two without PP sucking up 36 mpg.

If we're looking to reload, being under the cap might present possibilities for picking up young talented players for nothing, like Memphis did this year (or whoever got the player from Utah).  At the very least, Wyc would appreciate not paying a huge tax bill for a team that is a very long shot getting a ring.

I guess the wretched play by the team has made me quite unsure whether the current roster is worth keeping together, given what it would cost to do so.

[Vermont Green]

....and we traded KG....

I think it is more likely that KG retires than we find someone to take him in a trade.

[cdif911]

technically the Clippers are the Celtics or something like that....

http://a.espncdn.com/nba/columns/hughes/1164180.html

[cdif911]

ps a healthy Blake Griffin would have a very good shot at ROY - remember he's a year older and year more physically mature as well

[PosImpos]

ps a healthy Blake Griffin would have a very good shot at ROY - remember he's a year older and year more physically mature as well

he's also a year removed from playing competitive basketball

[guava_wrench]

What is our cap flexibility if both Allen and Pierce leave?

I think, if we renouced all our FA's, we'd have 5 players under contract for around $42 million, plus cap holds for draft picks (roughly $46 million) and with 6 roster spaces to fill, we'd have about $10 million to be still under the cap...meaning, to stay under, we'd have to fill out the roster with guys like TA, Shelden, and a bunch of minimum contract players.

Could we make the playoffs with a roster of Rondo/TA/Rookie/KG/Perk, with Sheed, BBD, Shelden, and minimum contract players off the bench?  Could Rondo and what's left of KG get us to the 8th seed at least?  Actually, I think they might...

But there wouldn't be enough money to get a talented FA this year.

This is pretty close. Yes there are 5 players with $42.1 million on the books. The only cap hold the Celtics would have for a draft pick would be their first rounder which at around the 20th pick would be about $1.2 million. That's $43.3. You have to have at least 13 roster spots filled or with cap holds. So if we renounce every free agent and then use the minimum salary cap hold for the other seven roster spots(about $900,000) or about $6 million.

That puts the Celtics best case scenario for being under the cap at $49.3 million with just KG, Rondo, Rasheed, Baby, Perk and their first round pick being on the team and cap space less than the MLE which they won't have because they would be under the cap because the estimates have the cap being put at about $54 million or less.

They are better off with Pierce and being over the cap and having the MLE to spend and not renouncing their free agents.

Thanks for clearing up the cap stuff, Nick, TP to you for good math.

The last bit, though...I'm not sure what "better off" means for the C's right now.  No question that, talent-wise, keeping Ray and Paul next to KG is our best talent option, but if it means the next two seasons look like the last three months, I'll pass.  I see no reason to go over the cap to have a .500ish team, a 45-50 win team as they age further.  It's probably what will happen, but still...why bother (besides marketing/riding that horse 'til it flops over).

I wouldn't be surprised if Rondo/KG (at the 5), with Perk traded for a competent scoring wing, and guys like TA and Shelden brought back for short money (like they make now)...I don't think that team would be all that much worse than 45-50 wins in the east, while having playing time to develop or showcase a youngin' or two without PP sucking up 36 mpg.

If we're looking to reload, being under the cap might present possibilities for picking up young talented players for nothing, like Memphis did this year (or whoever got the player from Utah).  At the very least, Wyc would appreciate not paying a huge tax bill for a team that is a very long shot getting a ring.

I guess the wretched play by the team has made me quite unsure whether the current roster is worth keeping together, given what it would cost to do so.

If you thought this season was bad, I don't think you would want to see us without Pierce and Ray.

It is easy to talk about picking up talented young players, but that doesn't mean they won't turn out to be frustrating busts, which is likely in such cases.

[guava_wrench]

haha and leave 21 million on the table. would you?

At the expense of possibly never making another penny playing basketball after that(clearly a stretch I know but a possibility depending upon the length of the lockout)?

If he can opt out and sign a $50 million contract, and believe me his agent will already have assurances of offers that big before he advised Paul to opt out, The why wouldn't he opt out of a $21 million contract when there is a distinct possibility of a lockout and then no one wanting to give Paul anything more than a one year deal for very little money thereafter considering the length of time away from the game and his age.

Marbury was forced to take a year off from ball at the age of 30 and went from a 15 PPG game scorer who could shoot a TS% of 53% to a 4 PPG scorer who could only shoot a TS% of 38%. A year away from the game at the age of 34 is probably going to have a horrible effect on Pierce and you can bet teams will not be rushing to hand him offers to sign.

If the logic behind opting out is playing it safe in case of a lockout, why not play it safe and keep the 21m?

How many players make 21m? That is not the time to opt out. Especially when you would be competing with true max players for a available cap space.

21m is too much to leave on the table when you have no idea what kind of contract offers you will get and you don't know that there actually will be a lockout, or how long it would last.

[nickagneta]

haha and leave 21 million on the table. would you?

At the expense of possibly never making another penny playing basketball after that(clearly a stretch I know but a possibility depending upon the length of the lockout)?

If he can opt out and sign a $50 million contract, and believe me his agent will already have assurances of offers that big before he advised Paul to opt out, The why wouldn't he opt out of a $21 million contract when there is a distinct possibility of a lockout and then no one wanting to give Paul anything more than a one year deal for very little money thereafter considering the length of time away from the game and his age.

Marbury was forced to take a year off from ball at the age of 30 and went from a 15 PPG game scorer who could shoot a TS% of 53% to a 4 PPG scorer who could only shoot a TS% of 38%. A year away from the game at the age of 34 is probably going to have a horrible effect on Pierce and you can bet teams will not be rushing to hand him offers to sign.

If the logic behind opting out is playing it safe in case of a lockout, why not play it safe and keep the 21m?

How many players make 21m? That is not the time to opt out. Especially when you would be competing with true max players for a available cap space.

21m is too much to leave on the table when you have no idea what kind of contract offers you will get and you don't know that there actually will be a lockout, or how long it would last.

Because, as I said, before advising his opting out, his agent will probably already have shopped him around and gotten some kind of idea what the market would be for him and what level of contract he would be getting.

Paul's agent might already know that if he opts out the Celtics might put together a favorable deal with him getting a very favorable contract for both sides. One such contract could be for 4 year with a bunch of deferred money and a low salary but overall larger overall contract value. Say $50 million. It would entail Paul retiring a Celtic and staying on with the team in an ambassadorial status type PR position with the team afterward.

The agent might also know that the Clippers would love to give home town boy, Paul Pierce, a big contract and also know that Chicago and Miami would also have interest as well. I think it would be wisest for his agent to make a bunch of calls and test the market ahead of Pierce making his decision and if things are favorable in the market and he has some definite prospects, he would opt out.

[screwedupmaniac]

If Pierce can get a Baron Davis type deal from the Clippers, I wouldn't blame him in the least for taking it and playing with his good buddy Baron in LA to end his career.

Suddenly Pierce and Ray are off the books, and we're a couple of trades (KG and Sheed) away from hardcore rebuilding mode. If we get bumped in the first round, I'd have no problem with this scenario...the longer we wait to rebuild with draft picks/young high flyers and shooters around Rondo, the shorter our next window of opportunity will be when it arrives. Rondo won't be as fast as he currently is forever. Speaking of speed, I'm getting sick and tired of the fact that he's the only player on our team that can actually flat out sprint. This off-season is the time to get some draft picks and young athleticism to put around Rondo.

[j804]

If Pierce can get a Baron Davis type deal from the Clippers, I wouldn't blame him in the least for taking it and playing with his good buddy Baron in LA to end his career.

Suddenly Pierce and Ray are off the books, and we're a couple of trades (KG and Sheed) away from hardcore rebuilding mode. If we get bumped in the first round, I'd have no problem with this scenario...the longer we wait to rebuild with draft picks/young high flyers and shooters around Rondo, the shorter our next window of opportunity will be when it arrives. Rondo won't be as fast as he currently is forever. Speaking of speed, I'm getting sick and tired of the fact that he's the only player on our team that can actually flat out sprint. This off-season is the time to get some draft picks and young athleticism to put around Rondo.

Gotta agree with that (although him staying in Boston and retiring would be fine too). I luv Pierce but boy does he look 50 yrs old at times, like last night against Washington.