Do we actually have cap space?

[Roy H.]

Zero chance Wallace's contract gets stretched.

I can see him being stretched in a scenario where the Celtics want to retain Avery Bradley while creating cap space to sign a major free agent.

I can't.  In this hypothetical scenario started by the OP, Bradley isn't re-signed, and we only have $10-$12 million.  If Bradley is re-signed,  say at $5 million for year 1, which would at least not cause some members of this board to riot (even if I think it's low), then you're at $5-7 million cap room (probably $6 million when you account for cap holds).  So then you waive Wallace, and you're at $12 million.  The TPE is $10 million.  What player are you going to get for $12 million who is so much better than the player you could get for $10 million that's it's worth having $4 million in dead money on the books for the next four seasons after this one?  Furthermore, Bogans+Pressey+Johnson+Babb can bring you back $11.75 million in salary if all packaged together, which is pretty much where we'd be with the cap room.  Yes, you'd have to do a sign-and-trade, but those generally aren't hard if you're not getting a franchise player and you're making the other team take on zero dollars of guaranteed salary.  Might cost us two second round picks.  That's a fine price to pay when the alternative is having that much deadweight on your cap for such a long period.

In addition to what you've said, by exercising cap room the Celtics would renounce the MLE, as well.

[slamtheking]

Zero chance Wallace's contract gets stretched. Wouldn't you rather just bite the bullet and get rid of him next year when he is an expiring contract as opposed to having a mid-level equivalent salary on the books for the next four seasons?

Unfortunately, Wallace's contract won't be an expiring one next year.  We've got that albatross on our books until 2015/16.  There's almost zero chance we'll be able to move him next season, and I think the "expiring contract" thing has become a little overrated as a trading chip.

Not necessarily Roy.  while he himself would probably not be much of an asset even as an expiring deal, he could function as our next Theo Ratliff -- used as a 1-year contract to fill salary requirements to bring in a much better player.

[Monkhouse]

Zero chance Wallace's contract gets stretched. Wouldn't you rather just bite the bullet and get rid of him next year when he is an expiring contract as opposed to having a mid-level equivalent salary on the books for the next four seasons?

Unfortunately, Wallace's contract won't be an expiring one next year.  We've got that albatross on our books until 2015/16.  There's almost zero chance we'll be able to move him next season, and I think the "expiring contract" thing has become a little overrated as a trading chip.

Not necessarily Roy.  while he himself would probably not be much of an asset even as an expiring deal, he could function as our next Theo Ratliff -- used as a 1-year contract to fill salary requirements to bring in a much better player.

Agreed. Wallace/Bass will most likely be used as filler for cap space to match the requirements for a superstar/Allstar if they decide to go that route.

Ainge has spoken about his attention at the free agents in '15.

While the players may possibly re-sign or be dealt extensions, some players may want out to possibly contend, and even if the Celtics future looks bleak. I think CBS, and Rondo may at least lure some interested candidates.

[Roy H.]

Zero chance Wallace's contract gets stretched. Wouldn't you rather just bite the bullet and get rid of him next year when he is an expiring contract as opposed to having a mid-level equivalent salary on the books for the next four seasons?

Unfortunately, Wallace's contract won't be an expiring one next year.  We've got that albatross on our books until 2015/16.  There's almost zero chance we'll be able to move him next season, and I think the "expiring contract" thing has become a little overrated as a trading chip.

Not necessarily Roy.  while he himself would probably not be much of an asset even as an expiring deal, he could function as our next Theo Ratliff -- used as a 1-year contract to fill salary requirements to bring in a much better player.

Well, let's hope we can get a doctor to certify that Wallace is medically unable to play, then. 

That was the biggest factor in Ratliff's contract being so valuable:  it was being paid for by insurance.

But yes, having Wallace's large expiring contract could potentially be useful in two years.  However, people treat it as if Wallace's contract is an actual future asset, when it really isn't.  We'd be much better off with cap space, or a productive $10 million player, or two productive $5 million players. 

[LooseCannon]

Zero chance Wallace's contract gets stretched.

I can see him being stretched in a scenario where the Celtics want to retain Avery Bradley while creating cap space to sign a major free agent.

I can't.  In this hypothetical scenario started by the OP, Bradley isn't re-signed, and we only have $10-$12 million.  If Bradley is re-signed,  say at $5 million for year 1, which would at least not cause some members of this board to riot (even if I think it's low), then you're at $5-7 million cap room (probably $6 million when you account for cap holds).  So then you waive Wallace, and you're at $12 million.  The TPE is $10 million.  What player are you going to get for $12 million who is so much better than the player you could get for $10 million that's it's worth having $4 million in dead money on the books for the next four seasons after this one?  Furthermore, Bogans+Pressey+Johnson+Babb can bring you back $11.75 million in salary if all packaged together, which is pretty much where we'd be with the cap room.  Yes, you'd have to do a sign-and-trade, but those generally aren't hard if you're not getting a franchise player and you're making the other team take on zero dollars of guaranteed salary.  Might cost us two second round picks.  That's a fine price to pay when the alternative is having that much deadweight on your cap for such a long period.

Assuming your numbers are right, hypothetically, you can trade Brandon Bass and Joel Anthony along with a first (maybe the Clippers pick) to a team with cap space for the draft rights of a foreign player who will never come to the NBA and add another $10 million-ish to cap space.  10+12 equals 22 and, hey, $22 million is around the amount of the maximum a team can offer Carmelo Anthony, so if you really want Melo, then stretching Wallace could be a way to put out a starting line up of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Melo, Sullinger.

At that point, maybe my idea of Green/Sullinger for Asik/Parsons/first might sound more attractive to some people.

[More Banners]

The sweet spot seems to be above the cap ( to use TPEs ) and below the tax (delaying/avoiding eventual repeater tax, not paying tax in non-title year) for now, which is where we are.  We get the full MLE as well.

So no cap space, but able to sign or trade for player (in a pretty much clean deal) with the big TPE.  Plenty of tools to completely reshape the roster.

[Theodor]

Well, let's hope we can get a doctor to certify that Wallace is medically unable to play, then. 
That was the biggest factor in Ratliff's contract being so valuable:  it was being paid for by insurance.
But yes, having Wallace's large expiring contract could potentially be useful in two years.  However, people treat it as if Wallace's contract is an actual future asset, when it really isn't.  We'd be much better off with cap space, or a productive $10 million player, or two productive $5 million players.

The Celtics fans are under the impression that Ratliff's contract was being paid for by insurance and it was the value of his contract. It's not true at least for the Wolves.

In the 07-08 season, Ratliff stayed healthy enough to start at center for the Wolves in the opening season games. His back (which limited him in the Celtics) is okay. The Wolves counted on him as the defensive anchor and hoped he could be productive enough. However he went down again after six games and had the exploratory arthroscopic surgery a month later. He was back to the court at February and the Wolves release him in order to let him join a playoff team.

The Wolves had to pay every cent when Ratliff was on their team. Ratliff was an injury-prone player in his late career. It's not a value. It's a RISK for the team that own his contract. Crash's status is better than Ratliff.