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.
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.
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.