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

[crownsy]

which won't work, as roy showed above.

To me, Wyc either doesn't know what he's talking about cap wise, or knows that a deal is in place that will gut the team of paul, ray, and rondo's cap hits by 2010.

If it's 2, i hope its something better than the Memphis deal.

Won't work? Aside from circumventing the cap(as Roy just mentioned) it's the most likely scenario that Wyc is referring to. You really think it's possible WYC doesn't understand the cap? I don't... Being 1 million under the cap doesn't put the C's into a hard cap situation (I.E. we can still sign minimums.)

I think it's quite possible wyc is lying or is misinformed yes. He just spent 2 months lying to the media about KG's knee, why would it stop now?

If he's not lying, the most likely scenario is gutting the team through trades of ray, rondo, and paul, as I and several posters have discussed.

[JSD]

which won't work, as roy showed above.

To me, Wyc either doesn't know what he's talking about cap wise, or knows that a deal is in place that will gut the team of paul, ray, and rondo's cap hits by 2010.

If it's 2, i hope its something better than the Memphis deal.

Crownsy, this which I posted earlier:

According to Hoopshype the Celtics are on the books for:

$44,726,729 next offseason.

If Paul opts out of his contract at $21,513,521 the C's fall to

$23,213,208

Pierce resigns at $15, $16, $17 and $18 million with Bird rights now putting the Celtics at

$38,213,208

This gives the C's $18 million under the cap for summer of 2010.

Works

[Jeff]

I'm thinking out loud here, but there could be a possibility where we immediately signed Paul and Ray to bargain contracts, let's say $2 million each for one year.  We'd then have enough room to sign a max free agent, and we'd still have Perk and KG on the roster (and would hold Rondo's rights).

Here's where it becomes brilliant (but expensive):  since Ray and Pierce were never renounced, we'd still have their Bird rights.  We could then give each of them a huge bump the following season (up to around as much as $17 million each, if we were so inclined).  This would be massively expensive, but it's the only realistic way I can think of to build a good team and still sign a max free agent.  Even then, we'd have to fill out the roster with minimum-salary players.

Also, we'd have to make darn sure we made no solid commitments to Pierce and Ray, because the league would almost certainly see this as an attempt to circumvent the salary cap.

I would imagine the players association would have something to say about Paul opting out of 21M and signing a 1 year deal for 2M.

[JSD]

which won't work, as roy showed above.

To me, Wyc either doesn't know what he's talking about cap wise, or knows that a deal is in place that will gut the team of paul, ray, and rondo's cap hits by 2010.

If it's 2, i hope its something better than the Memphis deal.

Won't work? Aside from circumventing the cap(as Roy just mentioned) it's the most likely scenario that Wyc is referring to. You really think it's possible WYC doesn't understand the cap? I don't... Being 1 million under the cap doesn't put the C's into a hard cap situation (I.E. we can still sign minimums.)

I think it's quite possible wyc is lying or is misinformed yes. He just spent 2 months lying to the media about KG's knee, why would it stop now?

If he's not lying, the most likely scenario is gutting the team through trades of ray, rondo, and paul, as I and several posters have discussed.

He's throwing out possibilities to get people talking probably but I don't think it's through ignorance...

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm thinking out loud here, but there could be a possibility where we immediately signed Paul and Ray to bargain contracts, let's say $2 million each for one year.  We'd then have enough room to sign a max free agent, and we'd still have Perk and KG on the roster (and would hold Rondo's rights).

Here's where it becomes brilliant (but expensive):  since Ray and Pierce were never renounced, we'd still have their Bird rights.  We could then give each of them a huge bump the following season (up to around as much as $17 million each, if we were so inclined).  This would be massively expensive, but it's the only realistic way I can think of to build a good team and still sign a max free agent.  Even then, we'd have to fill out the roster with minimum-salary players.

Also, we'd have to make darn sure we made no solid commitments to Pierce and Ray, because the league would almost certainly see this as an attempt to circumvent the salary cap.

I would imagine the players association would have something to say about Paul opting out of 21M and signing a 1 year deal for 2M.

Yep.  It would send up massive -- MASSIVE -- red flags to both the league and the NBAPA.  The league wouldn't be terribly happy, and might even try to stop us from re-signing him to a big deal the following year (since circumventing the cap is specifically forbidden).

[crownsy]

which won't work, as roy showed above.

To me, Wyc either doesn't know what he's talking about cap wise, or knows that a deal is in place that will gut the team of paul, ray, and rondo's cap hits by 2010.

If it's 2, i hope its something better than the Memphis deal.

Crownsy, this which I posted earlier:

According to Hoopshype the Celtics are on the books for:

$44,726,729 next offseason.

If Paul opts out of his contract at $21,513,521 the C's fall to

$23,213,208

Pierce resigns at $15, $16, $17 and $18 million with Bird rights now putting the Celtics at

$38,213,208

This gives the C's $18 million under the cap for summer of 2010.

Works

It works assuming massive collusion between paul pierce and the celtics against the players union by having a wink wink deal in place under the table post opt out, yes.

The far more likely scenario (and wyc is talking scenarios in teh interview) is that they trade PP, ray, and rondo for pieces going forward.

[angryguy77]

he either is liking the sound of his own voice, or he knows something. Guys don't make $ like he does by being dumb. I guess we will have to wait and see. Or he likes to say this stuff and see us here on the blog scatter like ants after kicking our hill.

[Jeff]

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)

[JSD]

which won't work, as roy showed above.

To me, Wyc either doesn't know what he's talking about cap wise, or knows that a deal is in place that will gut the team of paul, ray, and rondo's cap hits by 2010.

If it's 2, i hope its something better than the Memphis deal.

Crownsy, this which I posted earlier:

According to Hoopshype the Celtics are on the books for:

$44,726,729 next offseason.

If Paul opts out of his contract at $21,513,521 the C's fall to

$23,213,208

Pierce resigns at $15, $16, $17 and $18 million with Bird rights now putting the Celtics at

$38,213,208

This gives the C's $18 million under the cap for summer of 2010.

Works

It works assuming massive collusion between paul pierce and the celtics against the players union by having a wink wink deal in place under the table post opt out, yes.

The far more likely scenario (and wyc is talking scenarios in teh interview) is that they trade PP, ray, and rondo for pieces going forward.

Baron Davis opted out of a contract and took less yearly for long term security just last offseason. So what if Paul wants the security of another long term contract? $21,513,521 Million < $65 Million

Also, I'm starting to think you didn't listen to the interview.

[Casperian]

I'm thinking out loud here, but there could be a possibility where we immediately signed Paul and Ray to bargain contracts, let's say $2 million each for one year.  We'd then have enough room to sign a max free agent, and we'd still have Perk and KG on the roster (and would hold Rondo's rights).

Here's where it becomes brilliant (but expensive):  since Ray and Pierce were never renounced, we'd still have their Bird rights.  We could then give each of them a huge bump the following season (up to around as much as $17 million each, if we were so inclined).  This would be massively expensive, but it's the only realistic way I can think of to build a good team and still sign a max free agent.  Even then, we'd have to fill out the roster with minimum-salary players.

Also, we'd have to make darn sure we made no solid commitments to Pierce and Ray, because the league would almost certainly see this as an attempt to circumvent the salary cap.

I would imagine the players association would have something to say about Paul opting out of 21M and signing a 1 year deal for 2M.

Yep.  It would send up massive -- MASSIVE -- red flags to both the league and the NBAPA.  The league wouldn't be terribly happy, and might even try to stop us from re-signing him to a big deal the following year (since circumventing the cap is specifically forbidden).

 

[crownsy]

i guess we'll know if paul opts out of his contract in the next few weeks.

Personally i see it as pretty darn wishful thinking J, that the celtics have made a "wink wink" deal with paul that he gets a contract if he opts out and that he would take that big of a paycut for the chance that we get a FA here next year.

 I think the only scenario where we come in way under cap that he's hinting at is to move ray, paul and rondo.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[JSD]

i guess we'll know if paul opts out of his contract in the next few weeks.

Personally i see it as pretty darn wishful thinking J, that the celtics have made a "wink wink" deal with paul that he gets a contract if he opts out and that he would take that big of a paycut for the chance that we get a FA here next year.

 I think the only scenario where we come in way under cap that he's hinting at is to move ray, paul and rondo.

We won't know until next year if he opts out and It's really not a paycut. It's more like differed money for long term security. If you think about it, When he is 36 he'll be making $18 million when he should be making $10 - 11.

[Jeff]

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

[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.