Honest opinion on "the contract"

[slamtheking]

I thought 4 years/22 mil was the maximum extension that the Celtics could offer at the time. As in, they could have offered Perkins more after this season, when his contract would have expired. Still, I'm ok with the Celtics saying he wasn't worth more than $5.5M with his limited offensive skills.

yes, they offered him the most they could at the time - OKC only was able to offer him more because they had more cap flexibility - we could have offered him more this offseason but it would have been a bidding war of sorts (depending on the CBA) since at least 3 teams were seriously interested in him - including the Heat

Exactly true.  This info has kicked around the blog since the offer was made.  I'm not sure what the point of the thread is since the C's offered as much as they could during the season. 

[Chris]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

Its pretty simple.  The C's offered the max they could offer before every other team in the league could make offers to Perk. 

I think the fact that OKC signed him to more money than that, while he was still injured, and had not hit the open market shows that the offers this summer were going to be WAY over that $30 million.  And even though Perkins says he would have considered $30 million to sign at that time, there is no way he would even consider that when he is being offered considerably more money from multiple teams.

Based on how these things work, I think we can comfortably say that the contract Perk signed with OKC was the absolute bottom of his market.  They signed that contract when they did, because they knew he was going to cost much more if he hit the open market this summer.

So in conclusion, I strongly believe there is no way Perkins would have resigned for 4/$30 million at anytime when the C's could legally offer it to him. 

[Fafnir]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

Its pretty simple.  The C's offered the max they could offer before every other team in the league could make offers to Perk. 

I think the fact that OKC signed him to more money than that, while he was still injured, and had not hit the open market shows that the offers this summer were going to be WAY over that $30 million.  And even though Perkins says he would have considered $30 million to sign at that time, there is no way he would even consider that when he is being offered considerably more money from multiple teams.

Based on how these things work, I think we can comfortably say that the contract Perk signed with OKC was the absolute bottom of his market.  They signed that contract when they did, because they knew he was going to cost much more if he hit the open market this summer.

So in conclusion, I strongly believe there is no way Perkins would have resigned for 4/$30 million at anytime when the C's could legally offer it to him. 

The odds are high that OKC would have bid Perkins up pretty high when they'd be competing with the C's for Perkins.

[fairweatherfan]

Perk also got a $2 million raise this year, so it's effectively a 4 year/$32 million extension.  Factor in the luxury tax for at least next year and the effect on our cap flexibility moving forward and that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow. 

I don't think Perk was staying here unless he was willing to take less money than other teams would've provided, which it seems he wasn't.

[Chris]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

Its pretty simple.  The C's offered the max they could offer before every other team in the league could make offers to Perk. 

I think the fact that OKC signed him to more money than that, while he was still injured, and had not hit the open market shows that the offers this summer were going to be WAY over that $30 million.  And even though Perkins says he would have considered $30 million to sign at that time, there is no way he would even consider that when he is being offered considerably more money from multiple teams.

Based on how these things work, I think we can comfortably say that the contract Perk signed with OKC was the absolute bottom of his market.  They signed that contract when they did, because they knew he was going to cost much more if he hit the open market this summer.

So in conclusion, I strongly believe there is no way Perkins would have resigned for 4/$30 million at anytime when the C's could legally offer it to him. 

The odds are high that OKC would have bid Perkins up pretty high when they'd be competing with the C's for Perkins.

Exactly.  If they were willing to give up the kind of value they did to trade for him, I think its not a stretch to say they would have bid VERY hard for him this summer. 

[Cman]

I thought 4 years/22 mil was the maximum extension that the Celtics could offer at the time. As in, they could have offered Perkins more after this season, when his contract would have expired. Still, I'm ok with the Celtics saying he wasn't worth more than $5.5M with his limited offensive skills.

yes, they offered him the most they could at the time - OKC only was able to offer him more because they had more cap flexibility - we could have offered him more this offseason but it would have been a bidding war of sorts (depending on the CBA) since at least 3 teams were seriously interested in him - including the Heat

The deal that Perk signed with OKC is cheaper than I would have imagined Perk could have gotten on the open market this summer, *assuming* he was healthy.  IMO, Perk took a bit of a discount to sign the deal now, rather than risk injuring himself during the rest of the season and getting a lot less in the offseason.  Hence, I don't think the OPs comparison is entirely accurate.

[Boris Badenov]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

Its pretty simple.  The C's offered the max they could offer before every other team in the league could make offers to Perk. 

I think the fact that OKC signed him to more money than that, while he was still injured, and had not hit the open market shows that the offers this summer were going to be WAY over that $30 million.  And even though Perkins says he would have considered $30 million to sign at that time, there is no way he would even consider that when he is being offered considerably more money from multiple teams.

Based on how these things work, I think we can comfortably say that the contract Perk signed with OKC was the absolute bottom of his market.  They signed that contract when they did, because they knew he was going to cost much more if he hit the open market this summer.

So in conclusion, I strongly believe there is no way Perkins would have resigned for 4/$30 million at anytime when the C's could legally offer it to him. 

The odds are high that OKC would have bid Perkins up pretty high when they'd be competing with the C's for Perkins.

Exactly.  If they were willing to give up the kind of value they did to trade for him, I think its not a stretch to say they would have bid VERY hard for him this summer. 

I'd like someone else to weigh in on this, but the key question is this: were the Celtics free to make Perkins a higher offer after the qualifying offer expired?

Here is a quote from the NBA Salary Cap FAQ:

"A qualifying offer cannot be accepted after March 1. Teams may place a shorter time limit on their qualifying offer, specifying any date between October 1 and March 1 by which it must be accepted. If the deadline passes and the qualifying offer is neither withdrawn nor accepted, then the player continues to be a restricted free agent. The team and player are also still free to negotiate a new contract after the qualifying offer ends -- the deadline only affects the player's ability to accept the qualifying offer."

And again here:

"To summarize, a restricted free agent essentially has four options:

• He can accept his prior team's qualifying offer, play for one season, and become a free agent again the following summer.
• He can accept his prior team's maximum qualifying offer (if applicable, and if one has been submitted) and play under a long-term contract at the maximum salary.
• He can sign an offer sheet with another team, which his prior team is given the opportunity to match.
• He can negotiate a new contract with his prior team that is independent of the qualifying offer or maximum qualifying offer.

This is important. If Boston could have signed Perkins later in the season to the same deal that OKC offered, then Danny really was saying that 4yr/$32m was not worth it. If OKC could keep Perkins off the open market for $32m, then presumably Boston could too.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37

[Chris]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

Its pretty simple.  The C's offered the max they could offer before every other team in the league could make offers to Perk. 

I think the fact that OKC signed him to more money than that, while he was still injured, and had not hit the open market shows that the offers this summer were going to be WAY over that $30 million.  And even though Perkins says he would have considered $30 million to sign at that time, there is no way he would even consider that when he is being offered considerably more money from multiple teams.

Based on how these things work, I think we can comfortably say that the contract Perk signed with OKC was the absolute bottom of his market.  They signed that contract when they did, because they knew he was going to cost much more if he hit the open market this summer.

So in conclusion, I strongly believe there is no way Perkins would have resigned for 4/$30 million at anytime when the C's could legally offer it to him. 

The odds are high that OKC would have bid Perkins up pretty high when they'd be competing with the C's for Perkins.

Exactly.  If they were willing to give up the kind of value they did to trade for him, I think its not a stretch to say they would have bid VERY hard for him this summer. 

I'd like someone else to weigh in on this, but the key question is this: were the Celtics free to make Perkins a higher offer after the qualifying offer expired?

Here is a quote from the NBA Salary Cap FAQ:

"A qualifying offer cannot be accepted after March 1. Teams may place a shorter time limit on their qualifying offer, specifying any date between October 1 and March 1 by which it must be accepted. If the deadline passes and the qualifying offer is neither withdrawn nor accepted, then the player continues to be a restricted free agent. The team and player are also still free to negotiate a new contract after the qualifying offer ends -- the deadline only affects the player's ability to accept the qualifying offer."

And again here:

"To summarize, a restricted free agent essentially has four options:

• He can accept his prior team's qualifying offer, play for one season, and become a free agent again the following summer.
• He can accept his prior team's maximum qualifying offer (if applicable, and if one has been submitted) and play under a long-term contract at the maximum salary.
• He can sign an offer sheet with another team, which his prior team is given the opportunity to match.
• He can negotiate a new contract with his prior team that is independent of the qualifying offer or maximum qualifying offer.

This is important. If Boston could have signed Perkins later in the season to the same deal that OKC offered, then Danny really was saying that 4yr/$32m was not worth it. If OKC could keep Perkins off the open market for $32m, then presumably Boston could too.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37

There was no qualifying offer with Perk in this situation, so I am a little confused. 

Perkins was working on a (I believe) 4 year contract.  When the contract expired, he would be an unrestricted free agent.  They only make a qualifying offer, if he can be a restricted Free Agent.

Because he is still under that contract until July 1st, until that time (when he becomes an unrestricted free agent), the C's could only "extend" his current contract, and because of this, were only allowed to offer the contract they offered, due to being over the cap.

[BballTim]

http://www.nesn.com/2011/03/report-kendrick-perkins-signs-contract-extension-with-oklahoma-city.html

 In a perfect world were we can overspend to keep are own players.

 If the owners didn't care about The Tax, how much do you really think we needed to offer.
 
 Judging by this article I think 4 years 30 million would have sealed the deal.

 "The celts offered 4 years 22 million Perkins told CNNSE.com"

 "Your talking four years 30 million Shoot! That's different, that's a big difference"

 Do you really think it's "that bad" that are owners can't afford an extra three or four mill in Luxury tax.

 Cheap Cheap Cheap.

  First of all, you need to talk to the agents, not the players. Pretty sure Rondo said at some point that he'd have been ok with less than he ended up getting, somewhere in the 8-10 million a year range. Secondly, the problem isn't the three or for million in luxury tax, it's having the contract on your roster when you're hopefully re-tooling your roster.

[Boris Badenov]

There was no qualifying offer with Perk in this situation, so I am a little confused. 

Perkins was working on a (I believe) 4 year contract.  When the contract expired, he would be an unrestricted free agent.  They only make a qualifying offer, if he can be a restricted Free Agent.

Because he is still under that contract until July 1st, until that time (when he becomes an unrestricted free agent), the C's could only "extend" his current contract, and because of this, were only allowed to offer the contract they offered, due to being over the cap.

Oh, that clears it up. I don't know why I was thinking he was restricted.

[Chris]

There was no qualifying offer with Perk in this situation, so I am a little confused. 

Perkins was working on a (I believe) 4 year contract.  When the contract expired, he would be an unrestricted free agent.  They only make a qualifying offer, if he can be a restricted Free Agent.

Because he is still under that contract until July 1st, until that time (when he becomes an unrestricted free agent), the C's could only "extend" his current contract, and because of this, were only allowed to offer the contract they offered, due to being over the cap.

Oh, that clears it up. I don't know why I was thinking he was restricted.

Maybe you were thinking of Green.  He will be a restricted FA this summer. 

[LooseCannon]

I don't think Perk was staying here unless he was willing to take less money than other teams would've provided, which it seems he wasn't.

I think Ainge was willing to match money but not years, so I don't think Perk was staying here unless he was willing to sign a three-year contract.

The impending lockout was probably a big factor because, without knowing what would be allowed under the new CBA, Ainge couldn't make a handshake deal with Perkins for a new contract to be signed on the first day they are allowed to sign free agents.  So, it's possible that if the owners were more reasonable and weren't gunning for a hard cap with the elimination of Bird rights, Perkins would still be in Boston.