Keeping RJ Hunter this year, but not picking up option for next year

[otherdave]

This may not be the most pressing question, but since it is August, here goes.......Assuming RJ makes roster of 15 this year, does it make any sense to not pick up his option for next year (which the C's must decide by Oct 31, 2016)?

The advantage of not renewing his contract for next year would be to open up 1.25 mil in cap space next summer (I know this is not a huge number, but C's could need every scrap of cap space they can get next summer).

The risk of not renewing: injuries occur on the team allowing RJ to get minutes this season and he actually takes a leap this year - now he's a FA in summer of 2017.

The safe play is probably to renew, see if RJ develops, and if cap space is needed, try to trade him for a 55th place protected 2nd rd pick.  If a trade doesn't develop then C's are stuck with dead money even if they cut him. If the other team wanted cash considerations to help pay his salary, would that count against C's cap?

I know this is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but I was wondering how you think the inner circle should handle this?  Is there a precedent for keeping yet not renewing a player?

[kraidstar]

Cash considerations do NOT count against the cap.

You can have a total of $3.5M in cash considerations for the 2016-2017 season.

I see us picking up that option in the hopes he makes the leap this year. Worst case scenario we lose a million bucks or so.

It's a bet worth taking, and also gives us another contract to trade.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q96

[saltlover]

If the Celtics keep RJ Hunter on the roster, they should pick up his option.  I am not remotely convinced he should be kept over any of the three players he's theoretically competing with for a roster spot.  But if they do, they should pick it up.  Bentil has two years of non-guaranteed minimum salary years after this one -- if you're going to move on from Hunter no matter what next year, might as well keep the cheaper Bentil.  Or even John Holland, who will be a cheap restricted free agent.  Even James Young has a team option for next year, which they'd be foregoing.

Players do get kept and their options not picked up sometimes (Austin Rivers comes to mind), but I can't think of a situation where a team would keep such a player while simulatenously releasing other players with multiple years of team control available.

[otherdave]

Ok, if the end game is to create cap summer next summer, C's would waive/trade both Young and Hunter this October.  One of Bentil and Holland would make the team and one would not.

[saltlover]

Ok, if the end game is to create cap summer next summer, C's would waive/trade both Young and Hunter this October.  One of Bentil and Holland would make the team and one would not.

That isn't quite the end game.  As you stated initially, the cost on Hunter is negligible, as is the cost on the other three (except arguably Young.)  The goal is to keep the player who has the most long-term value.  None are likely to be in the rotation this year.  If the one you choose doesn't work out, you move on next summer, either by releasing him outright, not re-signing him (Holland), or sending someone a second-rounder to take him off your hands.

[Big333223]

The money it would cost to pick up his option would be almost negligible and very easy to move in a trade. There'd be no reason to not pick up his option, IMO.

[bogg]

Hunter's option is like 1% of the cap next year. If he makes the roster there's little reason not to pick up his third-year option as well.