Grousbeck: We can offer a 'max contract' next year

[Eja117]

Seeing as how Rondo is better, younger and more valuable than all those guys I'd be against that

[sully00]

Just kind of cruising this thread and on a couple of points.

I don't think Wyc is mistaken, If I owned the Boston Celtics I would want to know what the overall cap strategy was.

Rondo's cap hold is for 6.2 mil.

Last year in an interview Paul Pierce said he was under contract for 5 more seasons.

KG went from a 23 mil option to a 16.5 mil salary when he signed his 3 year extension.  Pierce is eligible for the same type of extension this offseason.

While it is only obvious to assume the economy will impact the cap it may not as quickly as you think as television contracts tend to drive the BRI.  The cap has grown at 2.5-3 mil a season the last 3 years.  These are the things Wyc knows that we don't.

If Boston knocks Pierce down to 16.5 mil and lets everyone go besides Perk(4.4 mil), KG (18., Pierce (16.5) and Bill Walker (850,000)they can likely squeek out another 16+ mil contract if the cap grows to 63-64 mil and 9 guys on the minimum (cap hold of 6.4 mil).

I only see this being done for Amare or Wade, maybe Bosh and obviously the King but lets get real.  I think the threat of this may be as effective in trade talks as the reality.

[rondohondo]

You need to account for the #4 pick's salary in your overall computation. So you'd have 5 guys signed in 2010-11.

Other than that, TP for the effort. 

You're right I fixed it, we would have about 15-18 MIL in Cap space

[winsomme]

the point isn't to get PP to take less money - it is to restructure his deal (as it were) to lock him in for an extension, netting him more money over the long term and giving us flexibility in the short term

it depends on what he thinks his value is after the end of his current contract, but I would think he'd be open to such talks if it meant getting a couple more banners

I just don't see how Pierce's agent would conclude that his future market value over the next five years (following next year) is less than $23 million or so. 

maybe 23 million, but for how many years?

i would be surprised if Pierce got full max deal over 5 years from another team...so if that's not going to be the case, the Cs could offer a year longer in deal to make up for money that he would make from another team earlier in a contract.

[indeedproceed]

So we'd have 5 of the 13 guys we'd need under contract, and 15 million to sign them all in?

[crownsy]

there has to be a way for Paul to opt out of his deal and make up the difference across a multi-year deal (even if it stretches out 5-6 years)

Based on the rough numbers (which are always subject to change), the most Pierce could make would be around $6 million in the first year of his contract.

The max deal we could offer would be:

Year 1: $6 million
Year 2: $6.63 million
Year 3: $7.26 million
Year 4: $7.89 million
Year 5: $8.52 million
Year 6: $9.15 million

In other words, he could sign a six year, $45.45 million contract.

If he simply plays for his option amount, he'd make $21,513,521 in one season.  That means that over the next five years of the deal, he'd only be making $23.93 million, or roughly $4.8 million per season.

In other words, I don't think there's much of a way to make the deal financially beneficial for Pierce.

do you really think he'll get a deal for more than $23 after his deal expires?

I don't know if I'd offer him much more than the MLE for 3 years given his age

i know this discussion is conjecture, but dialing down to dollars and cents becomes beside the point. would paul sacrifice some money and the spotlight to have a better chance at winning? gotta know the answer to that before this can be meaningful. my guess based on wyc's comments is it's at least been raised.

my guess is the fact that a trade of PP has been raised internaly, rather than coluding with the player a year before his option being the reason for the statement.

coluding with the player is hardly far-fetched. it's a lot more realistic than the Cs trading pierce this year.

why? because you think they won't?

The owner just said we will have a max level deal in 2010. that in some way involves the exit of paul's contract, through a incredibly team friendly restructuring or a trade.

Why is the trade so hard to consider? he certainly has value.

I for one mark this down to posturing for free agents by floating the idea that we could get another max deal player, thus making us a more attractive spot for MLE FA's to land.

[rondohondo]

If we did do this our roster would look like this

2009-10 Roster

PG: Kidd ( 1 year) / Rubio
SG: Ray  Allen     / House
SF: PP             / Grant Hill( 1 Year)
PF: KG             / Thompson
 C: Perk           / Vet Min ( 1 Year)



Then say we signed Stoudamire in 2010 Free agency

2010 - 11 Roster

PG: Rubio      / Vet Min
SG: Ray (Vet Min)  / Walker
SF: PP         / Vet Min
PF: KG         / Thompson
 C: Amare      / Perk


Looks Pretty good to me!

[rondohondo]

So we'd have 5 of the 13 guys we'd need under contract, and 15 million to sign them all in?

If you sign a Great Max player like Stoudamire here we would still have the MLE and Vet Min contracts to fill our roster out. Kind of like what we did last year when we lost most of our roster in the KG trade.

[Hoops]

Bosh and Stoudemire seem sort of redundant with KG on the team. Rip isn't good enough to deserve a max contract - especially given that he's getting old. Joe Johnson? Perhaps the best option to replace Ray, but would he come back to Boston? Would Boston want him back? Manu? Pretty good option - don't have much to say about that. Dirk could be interesting - does Perk come of the bench? Yao - better option than Dirk IMO because he actually plays in the post. But again, does Perk go to the bench? Or do you trade Perk for a shooting guard?

[rondohondo]

Bosh and Stoudemire seem sort of redundant with KG on the team. Rip isn't good enough to deserve a max contract - especially given that he's getting old. Joe Johnson? Perhaps the best option to replace Ray, but would he come back to Boston? Would Boston want him back? Manu? Pretty good option - don't have much to say about that. Dirk could be interesting - does Perk come of the bench? Yao - better option than Dirk IMO because he actually plays in the post. But again, does Perk go to the bench? Or do you trade Perk for a shooting guard?

Yea but you got to remember KG is coming off a knee injury and has a lot of miles on those legs. I think there is no doubt that KG and Amare could play together. Amare played about 5 years as a Center to start his career. Plus we could bring in Perk against the beefier Centers in the league . The good thing about that is that Perk can play with either KG or Amare , so that would be a pretty [dang] good front court .

[Jon]

According to Celtics co-owner Wyc Grousbeck, they will have the financial flexibility to offer someone a full max contract next summer. Speaking with “Dale & Holley” Monday, Grousbeck did not give specifics, but he reiterated this fact by saying “there is a situation under which we could do that.” Several high-profile players who would command a max contract are currently set to become free agents in 2010, including LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Amare Stoudemire, Dirk Nowitzki, and Chris Bosh. For more Celtics' updates, check out our basketball blog, "Green Street."

WEEI.com

And I can offer to give you all a million dollars...I just won't be able to actually do it. 

[Jon]

Hopefully Wyc was just trying to keep the fanbase interested during the long offseason.  To destroy this team on the on the off-chance that we might be able to nab an elite player is insane on so many levels. 

1) The player the C's are targeting might not even be a FA by the time 2010 roles around.  See Magic, Orlando and their pursuit of Tim Duncan. 

2) The player the C's are targeting might not actually come here.  See Bulls, Chicago when they tried to get in on the Duncan/McGrady/Hill summer and ended up with Ron Mercer. 

3) The C's might get that great player...and never win a title with him.  The Jazz had one of the best power forwards of all time paired with one of the best point guards of all time and they still couldn't win a title.  Just because the C's nab a superstar doesn't mean they're going to ever win a title with him. 

So given that these three scenarios are far more likely to occur than option 4: Sign LeBron, win 10 NBA titles, I think that Wyc and company should just focus on keeping the starting 5 that went 27-2 together and supported enough to win a couple more titles. 

[indeedproceed]

So we'd have 5 of the 13 guys we'd need under contract, and 15 million to sign them all in?

If you sign a Great Max player like Stoudamire here we would still have the MLE and Vet Min contracts to fill our roster out. Kind of like what we did last year when we lost most of our roster in the KG trade.

See I don't think that's true about the MLE. Sure, you still have Vet Mins, but you do not get the MLE if you go from under the cap to over it. The whole purpose of the MLE is to give teams over the cap a little bit of money to play around with.

[ssspence]

there has to be a way for Paul to opt out of his deal and make up the difference across a multi-year deal (even if it stretches out 5-6 years)

Based on the rough numbers (which are always subject to change), the most Pierce could make would be around $6 million in the first year of his contract.

The max deal we could offer would be:

Year 1: $6 million
Year 2: $6.63 million
Year 3: $7.26 million
Year 4: $7.89 million
Year 5: $8.52 million
Year 6: $9.15 million

In other words, he could sign a six year, $45.45 million contract.

If he simply plays for his option amount, he'd make $21,513,521 in one season.  That means that over the next five years of the deal, he'd only be making $23.93 million, or roughly $4.8 million per season.

In other words, I don't think there's much of a way to make the deal financially beneficial for Pierce.

do you really think he'll get a deal for more than $23 after his deal expires?

I don't know if I'd offer him much more than the MLE for 3 years given his age

i know this discussion is conjecture, but dialing down to dollars and cents becomes beside the point. would paul sacrifice some money and the spotlight to have a better chance at winning? gotta know the answer to that before this can be meaningful. my guess based on wyc's comments is it's at least been raised.

my guess is the fact that a trade of PP has been raised internaly, rather than coluding with the player a year before his option being the reason for the statement.

coluding with the player is hardly far-fetched. it's a lot more realistic than the Cs trading pierce this year.

why? because you think they won't?

The owner just said we will have a max level deal in 2010. that in some way involves the exit of paul's contract, through a incredibly team friendly restructuring or a trade.

Why is the trade so hard to consider? he certainly has value.

I for one mark this down to posturing for free agents by floating the idea that we could get another max deal player, thus making us a more attractive spot for MLE FA's to land.

which do you see as more likely, the coluding or the trade? come on.... tell me you think wyc's plan is to trade paul peirce in an effort to get under the cap.

[Eja117]

personally I think this is largely a smokescreen to give other GM's headaches. It shouldn't give us one