Paul's offseason decision

[JSD]

Yeah.  I don't see anyone walking away from 21 million. 

That said, I also don't think the C's necessarily want PP around still in 4 years.  Yeah, it'd be sentimentally nice to see him retire in Green, but if I'm Ainge, I don't want Paul around still after Garnett and Allen are gone.  If I'm Ainge, I try to extend Ray and Paul, but only through the end of KG's deal.  That way, the C's have three huge deals (plus Wallace) coming off the books the same summer, opening up a ton of money to add young superstars to put at the 2/3/4 positions between Rondo and Perk. 

Are any good players scheduled to be unrestricted that year?

And to Jsaad, in order for Paul to go into a long term deal, he's going to have to walk away from a guaranteed 21 million dollars next year.  I don't see him doing that.  The NBA superstar ego is too big.  Even if you are right, and he'll command no more than the MLE on the FA market, he'll never realize that until it happens to him.  Thus, he's going to think he's going to command 10 million+ on the FA market.  And if that's the case, he's not going to walk away from 21 million to get what he thinks he can get on the FA market the next season a year early.  

But my point is he'll be walking away from $21 million for around $60 million guaranteed... 

What if he blows out his knee in 2011? If the money is the same over time wouldn't you prefer the financial security? I know I would...

[Jon]

Yeah.  I don't see anyone walking away from 21 million. 

That said, I also don't think the C's necessarily want PP around still in 4 years.  Yeah, it'd be sentimentally nice to see him retire in Green, but if I'm Ainge, I don't want Paul around still after Garnett and Allen are gone.  If I'm Ainge, I try to extend Ray and Paul, but only through the end of KG's deal.  That way, the C's have three huge deals (plus Wallace) coming off the books the same summer, opening up a ton of money to add young superstars to put at the 2/3/4 positions between Rondo and Perk. 

Are any good players scheduled to be unrestricted that year?

And to Jsaad, in order for Paul to go into a long term deal, he's going to have to walk away from a guaranteed 21 million dollars next year.  I don't see him doing that.  The NBA superstar ego is too big.  Even if you are right, and he'll command no more than the MLE on the FA market, he'll never realize that until it happens to him.  Thus, he's going to think he's going to command 10 million+ on the FA market.  And if that's the case, he's not going to walk away from 21 million to get what he thinks he can get on the FA market the next season a year early.  

But my point is he'll be walking away from $21 million for around $60 million guaranteed... 

What if he blows out his knee in 2011? If the money is the same over time wouldn't you prefer the financial security? I know I would...

My point is that while it might make sense from your perspective or my perspective, I don't think it's going to make sense from Paul's perspective.  Remember, this is a guy who has the self-confidence (and dare I say it, arrogance) to take last second shots with the season on the line and call himself the best basketball player on the planet.  Someone with that sense of self-worth isn't going to look at things objectively and make the "smart decision."

I'm not saying you're wrong.  He may darn well be better off financially to do what you're suggesting.  However, I think he has too high of an opinion of himself to think he won't get big time money on the FA market after next season. 

Plus, I also feel like he thinks the C's should continue to pay him big time money.  He's been the face of the franchise for over a decade, sticking it out and playing the good soldier even when things were at their worst.  I don't see him warmly taking what he perceives to be less than his market value. 

[JSD]

My point is that while it might make sense from your perspective or my perspective, I don't think it's going to make sense from Paul's perspective.  Remember, this is a guy who has the self-confidence (and dare I say it, arrogance) to take last second shots with the season on the line and call himself the best basketball player on the planet.  Someone with that sense of self-worth isn't going to look at things objectively and make the "smart decision."

I'm not saying you're wrong.  He may darn well be better off financially to do what you're suggesting.  However, I think he has too high of an opinion of himself to think he won't get big time money on the FA market after next season. 

Plus, I also feel like he thinks the C's should continue to pay him big time money.  He's been the face of the franchise for over a decade, sticking it out and playing the good soldier even when things were at their worst.  I don't see him warmly taking what he perceives to be less than his market value. 

Well if that's the case and Paul wants to play hardball I'm counting on this management to make the tough decision. As much as I love Paul Pierce, there is nothing worse than a franchise paying for past accomplishment. But I don't think that will happen here:

``We were being Belichickian,'' Celtics managing partner Wyc Grousbeck said of the infamously covert Pats coach. ``We had a great example to follow with the New England Patriots, and we were following their World Championship lead.''

[Roy Hobbs]

Paul Pierce is not walking away from $21 million, and the Celtics are not renouncing Wyc's favorite player in some misguided attempt to play hard ball.

Those are my opinions, but I truly believe they're about as close to "facts" as you can come.

[Jon]

My point is that while it might make sense from your perspective or my perspective, I don't think it's going to make sense from Paul's perspective.  Remember, this is a guy who has the self-confidence (and dare I say it, arrogance) to take last second shots with the season on the line and call himself the best basketball player on the planet.  Someone with that sense of self-worth isn't going to look at things objectively and make the "smart decision."

I'm not saying you're wrong.  He may darn well be better off financially to do what you're suggesting.  However, I think he has too high of an opinion of himself to think he won't get big time money on the FA market after next season. 

Plus, I also feel like he thinks the C's should continue to pay him big time money.  He's been the face of the franchise for over a decade, sticking it out and playing the good soldier even when things were at their worst.  I don't see him warmly taking what he perceives to be less than his market value. 

Well if that's the case and Paul wants to play hardball I'm counting on this management to make the tough decision. As much as I love Paul Pierce, there is nothing worse than a franchise paying for past accomplishment. But I don't think that will happen here:

``We were being Belichickian,'' Celtics managing partner Wyc Grousbeck said of the infamously covert Pats coach. ``We had a great example to follow with the New England Patriots, and we were following their World Championship lead.''

Yeah.  But as I said before, I don't think the C's necessarily want him around for 4 more years.  Personally, I'd rather sign him to a bigger, but shorter extension that only goes through the end of KG's contract.  That's another big reason I don't see them even encouraging him to opt out, because the only way they can make it even close to worth his while it to give him a 4 year deal.  

If I was Wyc, I'd be careful about following Bill B. too much.  That's not a shot a Belichick; I think he's probably the greatest sports mind out there right now.  However, his ability to cut players and get out of their contracts makes the way he runs a football team radically different than how Wyc and Danny run a basketball team.  Furthermore, in basketball, superstars have far more worth than they do in football.  In basketball they can play practically the entire game, contributing on every play.  In football, they play less than half the game and often have no bearing on a given play even when they're on the field.  

And I agree with what Roy said above.  While we could argue about whether it's a good or idea or not (and I still think that's not even the case), I think we can pretty much all say with 99% certainty that it isn't going to happen. 

[JSD]

If I was Wyc, I'd be careful about following Bill B. too much.  That's not a shot a Belichick; I think he's probably the greatest sports mind out there right now.  However, his ability to cut players and get out of their contracts makes the way he runs a football team radically different than how Wyc and Danny run a basketball team.  Furthermore, in basketball, superstars have far more worth than they do in football.  

My only point (as it's apples and oranges) was that BB does not pay players for past performances and neither will the Celtics. That basic philosophy can carry over.

[wdleehi]

I think the most likely scenerio is Pierce taking the option to return, and then work on an extension.

[slamtheking]

If I was Wyc, I'd be careful about following Bill B. too much.  That's not a shot a Belichick; I think he's probably the greatest sports mind out there right now.  However, his ability to cut players and get out of their contracts makes the way he runs a football team radically different than how Wyc and Danny run a basketball team.  Furthermore, in basketball, superstars have far more worth than they do in football.  

My only point (as it's apples and oranges) was that BB does not pay players for past performances and neither will the Celtics. That basic philosophy can carry over.

With the current CBA's rookie salary scale, almost all contracts are based on past performances.  There are very few contracts handed out currently based solely on prospective performance. 

Think about it from this viewpoint: If the player is available because his drafting team renounced him, he's not getting a big contract since he was essentially cut.  If the player is a available as a UFA, it's after teams have had a chance to evaluate the player for several years in the league and can offer a contract that's in line with that player's demonstrated abilities.

The exceptions are usually with RFA's where a team tries to lure a player by offering a significant amount over the player's worth to either prevent the team with the player's rights from matching OR to force the team with the rights to hurt themselves financially to retain the player.

[Jon]

I think the most likely scenerio is Pierce taking the option to return, and then work on an extension.

I agree.  My hope would exercises the option and then signs a one year deal.  I'll leave the money up to PP and Wyc.  Ultimately it'd simply be a matter of how much Wyc wants to pay, since during those that year the C's won't be anywhere close to the salary cap with KG and Wallace under contract, Rondo and Perk likely extended, and possibly Ray as well.  

Then come the summer of 2012, we can worry about signing some FAs as Pierce, KG, Wallace, and maybe even Ray come off the books.  

[JSD]

“I always said my goal was to play until I was 36, but my goals can change,” Pierce said. “My contract is up when I’m 33, so we’ll see from there." But hopefully I can play three more years after that, and if I’m in good shape and I’m taking care of my body, then maybe I’ll play more. “I don’t know. I haven’t really given it much thought. I’m just playing it out.” - (Paul Pierce, Boston Herald)

At the moment it appears as though Pierce (who turns 32 today) will be picking up his option and looking for a 3 year extension. But I stand by my prediction until it happens.

[LarBrd33]

I haven't bothered to read this entire thread so I'm sorry if this has been brought up.   I can't back any of the numbers being thrown out, but I can back the idea that something like this could happen.  It's happened before.   In 2005, Shaq opted out of the last year of his contract (where he would have made over 30 million) to sign a 5 year extension with the Heat where he'd make 20 million a year.  The media presented it as "Shaq taking a paycut" and "being a team player to help his team's financial flexibility".   REally it just makes sense, though.  He could have made 30 million in 2005-2006 (which would have made him the highest paid player in the league), but the guy was 33 years old...  WHat if he got injured?  It made more sense to opt out and get the security of 5 years (100 million).   

Good move for Shaq, right?  Can you imagine if he had been a free agent any time during the last few years?  No way does he get a contract making 20 mil a year.  No way. 


So Jsaad might have the right idea here.  I could see Pierce and the Celtics working something out where Pierce willingly opts out of his contract making 21 million next year... in order to receive something like 14 mil a year over the next 4-5 years.  He'll be 33 years old in 2010-11 (when he has the player option)... Locking up that security might make the most sense.   Is it a lock that a 34 year old Pierce will still be able to command 20 million a year?   We're talking about 3 years from now.

So yes, I back the idea.   It would all depend on the Celtics and Pierce working out something together.   But in the case of Miami, I think they actually had a need for that additional 10 million saved in the 2005-06 season.  They were willing to give Shaq a 5 year 100 mil extension if he would cooperate and give them that extra 10 mil flexibility (which they had the capacity to use).    From Boston's perspective right now... I'm not sure what a 5-6 million dollar savings in 2010-11 can really do for them.  They are already going to be over the cap probably.  The only scenario it really makes sense is if they give Ray a massive paycut in an extension, Rondo gets a lot less than expected, Sheed retires... and the Celtics are suddenly looking at some potential caproom if Pierce opts out.  In that scenario, it would make sense for Boston to say, "hey Pierce... do us a solid and take 6 million less this year and we'll lock up a 5 year extension for you".  That scenario only really makes sense if the Celtics have a free agent target and some cap room.  "Yo, Pierce... We can give Dwayne Wade a contract if you just opt out and take a paycut.  But no worries, we'll make it up to you with a 5 year extension!"...  otherwise, there is probably no incentive to bother from Boston's perspective.  Our projected lack of caproom makes such a scenario very unlikely.

If they don't really have a practical use for the 5-6 million in 1 year savings... they probably will just let Pierce take his player option, see if he regresses... and figure out his extension when he's 33.

[billysan]

Since this is a mostly opinion thread, mine is that Paul takes the 21 million and then has a contract on the table for 45 million over three years to run concurrently. Possibly with an additional option year for 12 million.

Good point on the Shaq scenario, LarBrd33. I have always viewed that as an excellent business decision by Shaq. The contract was actually drawn up by Mickey Aronson and Shaq's agent while he was with the Heat in an attempt to free up money for resigning DWade according to South Florida news papers. I dont think Paul will follow it because he hasnt had the injury or weight problems Shaq had prior to signing that one.

[JSD]

I'm not sure what a 5-6 million dollar savings in 2010-11 can really do for them.  They are already going to be over the cap probably. 

5-6 million dollar savings multiplied by two when considering the luxury tax.

[LarBrd33]

I'm not sure what a 5-6 million dollar savings in 2010-11 can really do for them.  They are already going to be over the cap probably. 

5-6 million dollar savings multiplied by two when considering the luxury tax.

That's true.  That's some incentive for Boston to work out something with Paul. 

[JSD]

Paul Pierce will make an interesting decision this off-season and surprise a lot of people on here. He will opt out of the final year of his contract with a long term deal in place to retire a Celtic. I don't have an inside source or any of that nonsense, this is my prediction. With a contract of this magnitude and the Celtics deep into the LT he holds the bargaining chips. The Celtics would jump at the opportunity to lessen their payroll for 2011 and sign him long term. Pierce's incentive is simple, if he doesn't opt out and take less he's in for a big pay cut come 2012.

Pierces path:

1:

2011 - $21 Million
2012 - $06 Million
2013 - $07 Million
2014 - $08 Million
---------------------------
$42 Million over 4 years

2:

2011 - $14 Million
2012 - $14 Million
2013 - $14 Million
2014 - $14 Million
---------------------------
$56 Million over 4 years

My Pierce prediction.