Paul Pierce contract myths

[LarBrd33]

I do not think this article is actually correct. 

How can we pay Paul Pierce 5 million this year to waive him and then pay him more to play for us again?  That is one contract to not play for us and another to play for us.

I'm having the same confusion as you Yogi.

In general, someone with more patience should write a FAQ (I'm looking at you Hobbs) to clears this up.   I can see just from this thread that people are confusing waiver, buyout and amnesty.  I had been under the impression that all three are significantly different.  In fact, I wasn't even aware that you could "waive" players in the NBA.  I've heard of cutting guys and buying them out.  Does "waive" just mean they cut him before his partially-guaranteed deal becomes fully guaranteed?  And then if we did that, wouldn't that $5 million be stuck on our books whether he plays for us or not?  Then doesn't that mean (like Yogi suggests), if we somehow signed Pierce for the MLE, we'd have Pierce's 5 million stuck on the books (his partial-guaranteed money) + the MLE amount? 

And further... does any of this matter?  With Bass making 7 mil, Lee and Terry making 5 mil each, Jeff Green making 9 mil, Rondo making 12 mil and KG making 11 mil... aren't we over the cap regardless of what we do with Pierce?

So really we're talking about potentially saving 5 million for a team that is already like 20 million dollars over the salary cap?   What difference does that make to the fan? 

[LooseCannon]

This still wouldn't open up cap space though . So I don't see how we would make any improvements to the current roster

A team has to be end up under the apron for it to be able to do a sign-and-trade, so getting Pierce to take a pay cut this way would theoretically make it a lot easier for the Celtics to acquire talent via sign-and-trade.  Of course, the decision to waive Pierce has to be made before the team is allowed to negotiate with other teams' free agents.

[Roy H.]

In fact, I wasn't even aware that you could "waive" players in the NBA.  I've heard of cutting guys and buying them out.  Does "waive" just mean they cut him before his partially-guaranteed deal becomes fully guaranteed?

Any time a player is cut -- whether they're released, bought out, or amnestied -- they go through waivers, where every team in the league is allowed to submit a claim.  A claim, in this case, means taking on the player and his entire remaining contract.

If a player is released, and unclaimed on waivers, his contract is paid by his original team (with some caveats), and he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

If a player is bought out, and unclaimed on waivers, his agreed upon reduced contract is paid by his original team, and he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

If a player is placed on amnesty waivers and is unclaimed on "normal" waivers, then he goes to the team that puts in the highest "bid" on him.  Only teams with cap space can place bids.  If a player makes it both through "normal" waivers and amnesty waivers (which is actually run concurrently), he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Then doesn't that mean (like Yogi suggests), if we somehow signed Pierce for the MLE, we'd have Pierce's 5 million stuck on the books (his partial-guaranteed money) + the MLE amount? 

That's exactly what it means.  The $5 million would be untradeable ("dead money"), while the MLE contract would operate like any other contract.

And further... does any of this matter?  With Bass making 7 mil, Lee and Terry making 5 mil each, Jeff Green making 9 mil, Rondo making 12 mil and KG making 11 mil... aren't we over the cap regardless of what we do with Pierce?

Pretty much.  For some scenarios, see here:  http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/2/14/3988242/cap-questions-could-josh-smith-replace-kg-and-pierce

So really we're talking about potentially saving 5 million for a team that is already like 20 million dollars over the salary cap?   What difference does that make to the fan?

It can make a pretty big difference in terms of luxury tax.  It's going to be more punitive this year, and becomes especially punitive in the future for repeat payers.

[GreenEnvy]

Why would we waive a player we already have under contract to then use out best tool to adding an impactful player on that very same player? Seems like only something the Knicks would do.

Sure it saves money and we may avoid the harsher luxury tax, but it hinders our ability to get better. It puts all the pressure on Ainge to come up with some magic trade that I doubt is out there.

If some financial flexibility is what ownership covets, DA needs to move one or more of Lee, Terry and Bass to stay under the apron. Then go out and use the MLE on a free agent.

[Yogi]

In fact, I wasn't even aware that you could "waive" players in the NBA.  I've heard of cutting guys and buying them out.  Does "waive" just mean they cut him before his partially-guaranteed deal becomes fully guaranteed?

Any time a player is cut -- whether they're released, bought out, or amnestied -- they go through waivers, where every team in the league is allowed to submit a claim.  A claim, in this case, means taking on the player and his entire remaining contract.

If a player is released, and unclaimed on waivers, his contract is paid by his original team (with some caveats), and he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

If a player is bought out, and unclaimed on waivers, his agreed upon reduced contract is paid by his original team, and he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

If a player is placed on amnesty waivers and is unclaimed on "normal" waivers, then he goes to the team that puts in the highest "bid" on him.  Only teams with cap space can place bids.  If a player makes it both through "normal" waivers and amnesty waivers (which is actually run concurrently), he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Then doesn't that mean (like Yogi suggests), if we somehow signed Pierce for the MLE, we'd have Pierce's 5 million stuck on the books (his partial-guaranteed money) + the MLE amount? 

That's exactly what it means.  The $5 million would be untradeable ("dead money"), while the MLE contract would operate like any other contract.

And further... does any of this matter?  With Bass making 7 mil, Lee and Terry making 5 mil each, Jeff Green making 9 mil, Rondo making 12 mil and KG making 11 mil... aren't we over the cap regardless of what we do with Pierce?

Pretty much.  For some scenarios, see here:  http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/2/14/3988242/cap-questions-could-josh-smith-replace-kg-and-pierce

So really we're talking about potentially saving 5 million for a team that is already like 20 million dollars over the salary cap?   What difference does that make to the fan?

It can make a pretty big difference in terms of luxury tax.  It's going to be more punitive this year, and becomes especially punitive in the future for repeat payers.

It seems highly probable that Pierce would get picked up by another team (Dallas for sure) if he ever hits the waivers.  I doubt we would have the opportunity to re-sign him. 

It would be extremely disrespectful to Pierce to waive him and offer him a min contract the same year that Kobe is sitting at home collecting 30 million.  After giving us so much for so many years that would be a horrible thing to do to the captain. 

[saltlover]

My only question is would we still have Bird rights to Pierce, in the event he cleared waivers, or would we be limited to the MLE and less?  If it's the latter, then pursuing this strategy could make some sense, because we could resign Pierce for $7 mil, save $3 mil on his overall salary, and retain the MLE to sign another player, while giving us more room for a sign-and-trade or to end up under the luxury tax (which will likely be $3-4 million higher next season.)  If we would have to use the MLE to keep Pierce, however, I do not think it would be worthwhile.

[nickagneta]

My only question is would we still have Bird rights to Pierce, in the event he cleared waivers, or would we be limited to the MLE and less?  If it's the latter, then pursuing this strategy could make some sense, because we could resign Pierce for $7 mil, save $3 mil on his overall salary, and retain the MLE to sign another player, while giving us more room for a sign-and-trade or to end up under the luxury tax (which will likely be $3-4 million higher next season.)  If we would have to use the MLE to keep Pierce, however, I do not think it would be worthwhile.

I was under the impression, wrongly I guess, that we could retain his rights as the contract ends with the Celtics not picking up the rest of the contract.

But it doesn't work that way. Because there was a contract of any kind for the year, the Celtics must waive Pierce and thus, lose his Bird rights.

[CelticConcourse]

I don't know, call me crazy, but why wouldn't Pierce just sign the MLE for 2 years - or even one just so he could retire a Celtic?  he wouldn't be leaving THAT much money on the table and he'd still be getting the 5M to waive his current contract

thoughts?  am I missing something?

Why would you make five million dollars, when you can make fifteen million dollars?

[SparzWizard]

I don't know, call me crazy, but why wouldn't Pierce just sign the MLE for 2 years - or even one just so he could retire a Celtic?  he wouldn't be leaving THAT much money on the table and he'd still be getting the 5M to waive his current contract

thoughts?  am I missing something?

Why would you make five million dollars, when you can make fifteen million dollars?

I wish I can make 5M dollars...heck even 1M 

[LooseCannon]

My only question is would we still have Bird rights to Pierce, in the event he cleared waivers, or would we be limited to the MLE and less?  If it's the latter, then pursuing this strategy could make some sense, because we could resign Pierce for $7 mil, save $3 mil on his overall salary, and retain the MLE to sign another player, while giving us more room for a sign-and-trade or to end up under the luxury tax (which will likely be $3-4 million higher next season.)  If we would have to use the MLE to keep Pierce, however, I do not think it would be worthwhile.

If the Celtics waived Pierce, the team would not have Bird rights if he clears waivers.  He would be treated the same as another team's free agent.  However, if Pierce was waived and signed with the Celtics for a one-year deal without being claimed or signed by another team, the Celtics would have his Bird rights after the new deal is over.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Here`s something I`m wondering. If out of Pierce`s 15.3 million, only 5 is guaranteed, how would the Cs cap situation be affected if they agreed to only guarantee an additional (lets say 5) of the remaining 10.3 million, in exchange for a no trade clause or some other thing?

[goCeltics]

unless they can land a big already under contract via trade can't see why you'll bring pierce back to a non contender, cause they wouldn't have the room to make a move as they be way above the apron and i doubt wyc would wanna be way above the apron anyhows, as just being 4 mill above the tax level(apron level) will cost him 10 million in tax fees alone.

AInge is has to either land a boderline all star calibre big (gortat, josh smith, al jefferson) or blow this thing up. i hopeful that a lee + melo + pick package might get them there.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Let me rephrase. Most of the sites I`ve seen discussing the Celtics  cap situation for next season count Pierce`s full 15.3 million even though only approximately 5 is guaranteed before 30th June. (Feel free to correct my figures and dates) Can the Cs and Pierce work out an arrangement where not all of the remaining 10.3 million  is guaranteed by then and get some cap relief un in here?