Paul Pierce 2010/11 Player Option?

[LarBrd33]

I couldn't find this answered anywhere else.

Was looking at our salary situation on hoopshype and it shows that Pierce has a player option for the 2010/11 season.  If he picks it up he'll make 21.5 million for the 2010/11 season.  I think everyone assumes it's a given that he'll pick up that option, right?

...

But has there ever been a situation where a player does NOT pick up a player option in order to take a "pay cut" to help his team?  I'm not saying that Pierce would say "Ok I'm passing on 21 million to take the league minimum"... but is it legal for Pierce to reject his player option and then have Ainge give him like 5 years 50 million (in which he'd make like 10 mil in 2010/11 and 10 mil for the next 4 years after?)  Basically what I'm asking is... is it possible for the Celtics to work out a 5-6 year extension with Pierce where he will make 10 mil a year, but he'd have to pass on his "player option" 2010/11 year? 

Didn't Shaq do something like this?  I seem to remember they reported it as Shaq taking a "pay cut".  He was making like 30 mil and then instead he was making 20 mil for the next 3-4 years.  I may be way wrong on this, though.  But it gave Miami some flexibility due to his "pay cut".

Only reason this is relevant is that if Ray expires and Pierce is only making 10 mil in 2010/11... that might be the mythical "2010 cap space" that Wyc is referring to... especially if we end up trading Rondo for a guy who will still be on his rookie scale contract in 2010/11. 

[bobdelt]

Yeah it's possible but there are also rules about giving an older player a long contract. I think it's called the "36 rule". Basically the money you pay a player after 36 can count towards the cap today. So you can give Paul like a 10 year deal, for less money per year but in aggregate is the same.

PP will still be a couple years away from that obviously, so if he wants he can take a paycut and resign for less money. But I don't see him doing that.

[LarBrd33]

I found my own answer on the Shaq thing.  Looks like I was right.  This seems to be exactly what the Heat/Shaq deal was about:

From 2005:  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2122716

MIAMI -- Shaquille O'Neal likely left millions on the bargaining table. What he wants more than money is another championship.

O'Neal signed a $100 million, 5-year contract with the Miami Heat on Tuesday, a deal that gives the 12-time All-Star center added financial security while allowing his team salary flexibility to pursue other players.

He'll make $20 million in each of the next five seasons in an agreement believed to include incentives. He was to have earned $30.6 million this coming season, but opted out of that deal for a longer-term pact with less money annually.

So he was supposed to make $30.6 mil, but opted out of the deal to sign a 5 year extension making 20 mil a year.  A "10 mil pay cut" was how it was reported.

Paul's motivation would be the same.   If he signed a 5 year 50 mil extension it would give him long-term security and would give Boston flexibility in the 2010 season to improve his championship chances.   

Crazy?  10 mil a year too little for the captain?

[Jon]

Yeah it's possible but there are also rules about giving an older player a long contract. I think it's called the "36 rule". Basically the money you pay a player after 36 can count towards the cap today. So you can give Paul like a 10 year deal, for less money per year but in aggregate is the same.

PP will still be a couple years away from that obviously, so if he wants he can take a paycut and resign for less money. But I don't see him doing that.

Yeah, I don't see him doing it either.  Maybe if Ray sets a precedent and signs a 2-3 year extension at smaller money, it might happen. But I don't know how Pierce, who likes to think of himself as the best player on the C's, is going to take a paycut when Garnett is still earning the big bucks for two more years.

[LarBrd33]

Yeah it's possible but there are also rules about giving an older player a long contract. I think it's called the "36 rule". Basically the money you pay a player after 36 can count towards the cap today. So you can give Paul like a 10 year deal, for less money per year but in aggregate is the same.

PP will still be a couple years away from that obviously, so if he wants he can take a paycut and resign for less money. But I don't see him doing that.

Yeah, I don't see him doing it either.  Maybe if Ray sets a precedent and signs a 2-3 year extension at smaller money, it might happen. But I don't know how Pierce, who likes to think of himself as the best player on the C's, is going to take a paycut when Garnett is still earning the big bucks for two more years.

Paul is regressing slightly as a player.  He's 31 years old.  Next year he'll be 32.  In the 2010/11 season he'll be 33.  Do you think as a 34 year old free agent he's going to get a lot of money if he continues to regress a tiny bit each year?  Maybe he will... maybe he will not.   Maybe he'd rather just have the security of making 10 mil a year until he's 38?

Or maybe Paul likes his chances... maybe he wants his 21 mil in 2010... and then we'll see what kinda deals a 34 year old potentially washed up swingman can get from the league.  Maybe he'll get the MLE from someone.   Maybe if he's lucky he'll get a 6 year deal starting at the MLE that will add up to the $30 mil he'd miss out on if he just signed his 50 mil extension instead of taking his 20 mil player option.    lol

[jdpapa3]

Pierce is very into the history of the game and his legacy so it is possible that he would do this.

One of the coolest Celtic moments of my lifetime was seeing Pierce cry when they were about to raise that banner up. He knew he was a Celtic legend at that point.

[Jon]

Yeah it's possible but there are also rules about giving an older player a long contract. I think it's called the "36 rule". Basically the money you pay a player after 36 can count towards the cap today. So you can give Paul like a 10 year deal, for less money per year but in aggregate is the same.

PP will still be a couple years away from that obviously, so if he wants he can take a paycut and resign for less money. But I don't see him doing that.

Yeah, I don't see him doing it either.  Maybe if Ray sets a precedent and signs a 2-3 year extension at smaller money, it might happen. But I don't know how Pierce, who likes to think of himself as the best player on the C's, is going to take a paycut when Garnett is still earning the big bucks for two more years.

Paul is regressing slightly as a player.  He's 31 years old.  Next year he'll be 32.  In the 2010/11 season he'll be 33.  Do you think as a 34 year old free agent he's going to get a lot of money if he continues to regress a tiny bit each year?  Maybe he will... maybe he will not.   Maybe he'd rather just have the security of making 10 mil a year until he's 38?

Maybe.  I don't know if I want him here until he's 38, though.  In many ways, I'd be interested in seeing the C's extend Ray 2 years and Paul 1 year and have all three members of the Big Three expire the same year.  We'd either have 3 huge expiring contracts to trade or have the option of clearing a ton of money in one summer to add 2-3 year expensive players to Rondo and Perkins. 

[LarBrd33]

alls I'm saying is... say next season we are again just on the fringe of winning a title.   

The 2010 offseason comes up.  One of the following players shows interest in joining up with an aging Pierce and KG in Boston:  Bosh, Wade, Bron... 

Does Pierce take his 20 million, eliminate the ability to improve the roster and head into the 2011/12 season as a 34 year old free agent?

or...

Does Pierce sign a 50 mil extension that will allow him to finish his career as a Celtic, allow Boston to sign a monster free agent... and spend the next 5 years of his career winning titles?

[JSD]

I couldn't find this answered anywhere else.

Was looking at our salary situation on hoopshype and it shows that Pierce has a player option for the 2010/11 season.  If he picks it up he'll make 21.5 million for the 2010/11 season.  I think everyone assumes it's a given that he'll pick up that option, right?

...

But has there ever been a situation where a player does NOT pick up a player option in order to take a "pay cut" to help his team?  I'm not saying that Pierce would say "Ok I'm passing on 21 million to take the league minimum"... but is it legal for Pierce to reject his player option and then have Ainge give him like 5 years 50 million (in which he'd make like 10 mil in 2010/11 and 10 mil for the next 4 years after?)  Basically what I'm asking is... is it possible for the Celtics to work out a 5-6 year extension with Pierce where he will make 10 mil a year, but he'd have to pass on his "player option" 2010/11 year? 

Didn't Shaq do something like this?  I seem to remember they reported it as Shaq taking a "pay cut".  He was making like 30 mil and then instead he was making 20 mil for the next 3-4 years.  I may be way wrong on this, though.  But it gave Miami some flexibility due to his "pay cut".

Only reason this is relevant is that if Ray expires and Pierce is only making 10 mil in 2010/11... that might be the mythical "2010 cap space" that Wyc is referring to... especially if we end up trading Rondo for a guy who will still be on his rookie scale contract in 2010/11. 

The scenario you painted is correct. Baron Davis rejected his player option with GS and signed for less per year with the Clippers. So the CBA allows this, however, It's extremely far fetched to think Pierce would turn down $21 million for 1 year and sign for 5 years at $50. The more likely scenario would be a differed money type deal: 15, 16, 17 and 18 million in the last year = 4 years at $66 million

[LarBrd33]

I couldn't find this answered anywhere else.

Was looking at our salary situation on hoopshype and it shows that Pierce has a player option for the 2010/11 season.  If he picks it up he'll make 21.5 million for the 2010/11 season.  I think everyone assumes it's a given that he'll pick up that option, right?

...

But has there ever been a situation where a player does NOT pick up a player option in order to take a "pay cut" to help his team?  I'm not saying that Pierce would say "Ok I'm passing on 21 million to take the league minimum"... but is it legal for Pierce to reject his player option and then have Ainge give him like 5 years 50 million (in which he'd make like 10 mil in 2010/11 and 10 mil for the next 4 years after?)  Basically what I'm asking is... is it possible for the Celtics to work out a 5-6 year extension with Pierce where he will make 10 mil a year, but he'd have to pass on his "player option" 2010/11 year? 

Didn't Shaq do something like this?  I seem to remember they reported it as Shaq taking a "pay cut".  He was making like 30 mil and then instead he was making 20 mil for the next 3-4 years.  I may be way wrong on this, though.  But it gave Miami some flexibility due to his "pay cut".

Only reason this is relevant is that if Ray expires and Pierce is only making 10 mil in 2010/11... that might be the mythical "2010 cap space" that Wyc is referring to... especially if we end up trading Rondo for a guy who will still be on his rookie scale contract in 2010/11. 

The scenario you painted is correct. Baron Davis rejected his player option with GS and signed for less per year with the Clippers. However, It's extremely far fetched to think Pierce would turn down $21 million for 1 year and sign for 5 years at $50. The more likely scenario would be a differed money type deal: 15, 16, 17 and 18 million in the last year = 4 years at $66 million

Ok... same concept.  Would still save Boston 6 mil for that season... and if they let Ray walk and have Rubio on his rookie-scale contract we could in theory have money to land a top free agent.

lol

[Jon]

alls I'm saying is... say next season we are again just on the fringe of winning a title.   

The 2010 offseason comes up.  One of the following players shows interest in joining up with an aging Pierce and KG in Boston:  Bosh, Wade, Bron... 

Does Pierce take his 20 million, eliminate the ability to improve the roster and head into the 2011/12 season as a 34 year old free agent?

or...

Does Pierce sign a 50 mil extension that will allow him to finish his career as a Celtic, allow Boston to sign a monster free agent... and spend the next 5 years of his career winning titles?

Oh, I agree that it's worth it if one of those guys wants to come here.  However, I think the chances of one of them ending up here is small to begin with, and I think that already small chance becomes minuscule when it's contingent on Pierce opting out.  

We can hope though.  

[JSD]

I couldn't find this answered anywhere else.

Was looking at our salary situation on hoopshype and it shows that Pierce has a player option for the 2010/11 season.  If he picks it up he'll make 21.5 million for the 2010/11 season.  I think everyone assumes it's a given that he'll pick up that option, right?

...

But has there ever been a situation where a player does NOT pick up a player option in order to take a "pay cut" to help his team?  I'm not saying that Pierce would say "Ok I'm passing on 21 million to take the league minimum"... but is it legal for Pierce to reject his player option and then have Ainge give him like 5 years 50 million (in which he'd make like 10 mil in 2010/11 and 10 mil for the next 4 years after?)  Basically what I'm asking is... is it possible for the Celtics to work out a 5-6 year extension with Pierce where he will make 10 mil a year, but he'd have to pass on his "player option" 2010/11 year? 

Didn't Shaq do something like this?  I seem to remember they reported it as Shaq taking a "pay cut".  He was making like 30 mil and then instead he was making 20 mil for the next 3-4 years.  I may be way wrong on this, though.  But it gave Miami some flexibility due to his "pay cut".

Only reason this is relevant is that if Ray expires and Pierce is only making 10 mil in 2010/11... that might be the mythical "2010 cap space" that Wyc is referring to... especially if we end up trading Rondo for a guy who will still be on his rookie scale contract in 2010/11. 

The scenario you painted is correct. Baron Davis rejected his player option with GS and signed for less per year with the Clippers. However, It's extremely far fetched to think Pierce would turn down $21 million for 1 year and sign for 5 years at $50. The more likely scenario would be a differed money type deal: 15, 16, 17 and 18 million in the last year = 4 years at $66 million

Ok... same concept.  Would still save Boston 6 mil for that season... and if they let Ray walk and have Rubio on his rookie-scale contract we could in theory have money to land a top free agent.

lol

You're right, assuming Ainge doesn't sign anyone past the year 2010 we would be max contract eligible. Wyc is indeed referring to Pierce opting out and signing long term because that's the only way it would work. If that happened it would be Pierce, Garnett, Rubio, MAX contract, Perk, Giddens and Walker with no MLE or LLE available.

[LarBrd33]

I couldn't find this answered anywhere else.

Was looking at our salary situation on hoopshype and it shows that Pierce has a player option for the 2010/11 season.  If he picks it up he'll make 21.5 million for the 2010/11 season.  I think everyone assumes it's a given that he'll pick up that option, right?

...

But has there ever been a situation where a player does NOT pick up a player option in order to take a "pay cut" to help his team?  I'm not saying that Pierce would say "Ok I'm passing on 21 million to take the league minimum"... but is it legal for Pierce to reject his player option and then have Ainge give him like 5 years 50 million (in which he'd make like 10 mil in 2010/11 and 10 mil for the next 4 years after?)  Basically what I'm asking is... is it possible for the Celtics to work out a 5-6 year extension with Pierce where he will make 10 mil a year, but he'd have to pass on his "player option" 2010/11 year? 

Didn't Shaq do something like this?  I seem to remember they reported it as Shaq taking a "pay cut".  He was making like 30 mil and then instead he was making 20 mil for the next 3-4 years.  I may be way wrong on this, though.  But it gave Miami some flexibility due to his "pay cut".

Only reason this is relevant is that if Ray expires and Pierce is only making 10 mil in 2010/11... that might be the mythical "2010 cap space" that Wyc is referring to... especially if we end up trading Rondo for a guy who will still be on his rookie scale contract in 2010/11. 

The scenario you painted is correct. Baron Davis rejected his player option with GS and signed for less per year with the Clippers. However, It's extremely far fetched to think Pierce would turn down $21 million for 1 year and sign for 5 years at $50. The more likely scenario would be a differed money type deal: 15, 16, 17 and 18 million in the last year = 4 years at $66 million

Ok... same concept.  Would still save Boston 6 mil for that season... and if they let Ray walk and have Rubio on his rookie-scale contract we could in theory have money to land a top free agent.

lol

You're right, assuming Ainge doesn't sign anyone past the year 2010 we would be max contract eligible. Wyc is indeed referring to Pierce opting out and signing long term because that's the only way it would work. If that happened it would be Pierce, Garnett, Rubio, MAX contract, Perk, Giddens and Walker with no MLE or LLE available.

That's funny...

So we trade Rondo for the #2 pick and draft Rubio

Then we restructure Pierce's contract (he opts out of his player option) so that he'll make 66 mil over 4 years... thus making 15 mil in 2010-11 instead of the 21 mil he was set to earn.

Then we renounce Ray Allen...

We refuse to pick up the team options on Giddens or Walker...

we make sure nobody is signed for that season (let everyone walk)...

Our Salary situation for that season would be this:

KG = 18.8 mil
Perk = 4.3 mil
Pierce Restructured = 15 mil
Rubio = 4.5 mil in his 2nd year of his rookie contract

That = 42.6 mil...

The cap for this season was 58.6 ...

that gives us 16 mil to spend on free agents.  Piece of cake!  Sign LeBron and a bunch of minimum level guys. 

FOr what it's worth... Mike Conley makes 4.9 mil that season, but that Memphis trade still makes no sense, because Rudy Gay is a free agent that year in the same way Rondo is a free agent.