The Celtics will not have a big FA summer in 2010 either way, but especially not by the method you speak of.
However, there is a viable way for the Celtics to secure a major star who would otherwise be a FA in the summer of 2010. Both Danny and Wyc have touched on this, unsollicited, and it is by a mid-season trade. Even Danny alluded rather bluntly to the possibility of a mid-season trade involving Ray Allen. With his contract combined with other player talent and draft picks, the Celtics CAN get a major 2010 Free Agent. The odds aren't great, but it is possible.
So if they can make a big mid-season trade for a big time FA, why couldnt they make a play for a big FA after the season?
Motivations are different. A midseason trade provides cap relief, and probably other assets (like draft picks).
A trade during the offseason adds salary to a team, plus it decreases Ray Allens value, as he'll probably need to be involved in any sign and trade situation, or Rondo... and they would have to agree to go to the team they're being traded to. Assuming the other team would be interested in them.
For trades, sure. I get that. I am asking, with a lot of money able to come off the books at the end of the year, why couldn't the C's be a FA player?
I think this ownership would pay significant tax for a few years if they could make this team competitive for the long-term.
As I said in my first post in this thread, the reason is that we won't have cap room to be players during free-agency. We'll have the same financial resources as in years past, the mid-level exception in addition to the all the bird rights that will enable us to keep our free-agents. But we won't be players in free-agency other than via a sign and trade situation, or for players willing to come for the MLE.
There seems to always be tons of confusion over this.
Remember this: $30 million dollars of expiring contracts DOES NOT equal $30 million to spend in free agency.
Basically, here's why:
-There's a salary cap that says a team cannot spend more than 56 million dollars on payroll. (The exact number is somewhere around there and fluctuates year to year based on league revenue.)
-If you want to offer a max type player a contract starting at 17 mil per year, you need to have the contracts of every player on your roster add up to be 17 million less than the salary cap
-Remember that players who expire continue to count against your cap until you announce that you do not want them back by renouncing your "bird rights" on said player ("bird rights" = the ability to go over the cap to keep your own players)
-So, the NBA salary cap is a "Soft Cap," with several ways to go above it:
1. "Bird Rights" - You can always resign players who have been on your team for 3 years or for whom you traded, up to the maximum league salary, even if you have to go over the cap to do so.
2. MLE, LLE, Vet Min. - Every team at or over the salary cap can go over the cap using the MLE each year (about $5.5 mil), the LLE every other year (about $2 mil) or any number of league minimum salaries (anywhere from say $700,000-$1.4 mil or so I believe based on years played.
3. First round picks - A team can always sign it's first round picks at the league determined amount (starts at around 4 mil for the #1 pick i believe down to 1 mil by the end).
4. Raises - A new salary only has to fit into the cap for the year in which it is signed, then can offer raises every year in some cases up to 10.5% per year. Get a few of those and the salaries are suddenly over the cap without adding any players.
5. Trades - In order for trades to work if a team is over the cap, the incoming salaries must be within 25% + $100,000. So if a team is exactly at the cap, and they have a player making 10,000,000, they could trade him for a player making 12,600,000 and suddenly that team is $2.6 mil over the cap. Do this several years in a row, especially if each time you are trading a shorter deal for a longer one, and you end up with that mess the knicks had a few years ago.
The Celtics: Through all the means listed above, over several years, the Celtics have managed to get their payroll up to around $83,000,000. They were over the cap to begin this offseason, but added free agents through the MLE (Wallace), Vet Min (Williams), and the LLE (Daniels), and signed BBD to an extension because of Early Bird rights (a variation on bird rights that basically allows a team to always keep its own players). In order to add a big free agent next year (the C's will still be able to use the MLE next year for about $5.5 mil), they'd need to get under the $56 million dollar cap (ballpark figure). So if you're talking about signing Wade, Bosh, or Lebron as a free agent, they'll be eligible for starting salaries around 17 million I believe, so the Celtics would need to get down to $39 million dollars in salary. Which is technically close to possible if: Ray, Scal, Tony, Eddie, and Walker all expire and are not re-signed or replaced; They decline Giddens' option; Pierce decides he doesn't want the $21,000,000 remaining on his contract and he walks away without being re-signed or replaced AND the team decides not to extend Rondo and let's him play out his 5th year for the qualifying offer most likely to walk as an unrestricted free agent the following year.
Barring all that (which is just ridiculously unlikely), when Ray, Eddie, Scal, and Tony all come off the books, yes, that's $30,000,000 coming off, but that still just gets us down TO the salary cap, not under it in any way.
I hope that helps, but it basically comes down to:
The Cap number is what matters, and you need to be far under the cap to sign a big FA. The Celtics are SO FAR OVER the cap that even with 30,000,000 coming off the books, they still will be at or over the cap for 2010 free agency.
Topic: Shelden and Baby cheap contracts = C's looking at a big 2010 FA? (Read 11068 times)