Now that Rondo is locked up for next season, at somewhere likely between $9 and $12 million (depending how they structured the contract), the C's salary structure for next year is really starting to take shape. So I think it is time we take a look at what the salary structure will look like.
Hopefully by doing this, we can completely put to rest any ideas of the C's having cap space, and also take a closer look at the possibility of Pierce opting out/renegotiating.
For the purpose of this analysis, lets assume next seasons Salary cap drops $2.7 million to $55 million (a modest drop compared to what some speculate it could drop to), and the luxury tax threshold drops to $66.6 million. This would also put the MLE at $5.58 million.
Assuming Rondo's contract is spread evenly over the 5 years, at $11 million each year, here are next years commitments (from storytellerscontracts.com):
Pierce- $21.5 million (player option)
Garnett- $18.8 million
Rondo- $11 million
Rasheed- $5.9 million
Perkins- $4.9 million
Davis- $2.5 million
Walker- $0.9 million (not fully guaranteed)
First round draft pick- $1 million (estimated
So that means, if Pierce does not opt out, they have $66.5 million committed to 7 players. I would assume they would assume that they would use the entire MLE to fill out the roster, so that would put them at $72.08 million, and an actual cost (after luxury tax) of $77.56.
And then of course, we are still missing a major piece...Ray Allen. So assuming the C's were to sign him to a contract starting at $9 million, that then puts the C's at $82.08 million, and an actual cost of $97.56. Add in a few vet minimum contracts to fill out the roster, and it puts them right at about $100 million.
This is almost identical to the C's actual cost this season (which I calculated at $98.14 million)
So the question is, who benefits if Pierce opts out and restructures?
Obviously, ownership would benefit from it, in pure cash savings. If Pierce were to take a pay cut of say, $6.5 million next year, to come in at an even $15 million, that would save ownership about $13 million next season, when you consider luxury tax, and would put the actual costs at somewhere around $87 million. That is a huge amount of savings in a time where every penny counts.
The problem is, how does it benefit Pierce. Obviously, he wants to do whatever he can to help the team stay at the top for as long as possible...but does saving ownership $13 million really help the team on the floor? It does not bring them anywhere close to being under the cap, and they are still well over the luxury tax as well. It doesn't even make it that much easier for them to make trades, because they still need to be able to match salaries, so in any deal, they would likely be sending out as many salaries as they are bringing in.
I suppose it could make it more palatable for them to bring back guys like House, Daniels, and Scal, while still using the MLE. But again, it is all just a matter of cash, so why should Pierce be giving up his own cash, just so the owners (who are much richer than him) can save their own?
The answer of course comes at the end of the deal for Pierce. In order for Pierce to agree to do something like this, is if ownership finds a way to make up for that $6.5 million on the back end of his contract. So Pierce needs to look at the market in two years, and try to figure out how much he thinks he is worth on his next (and possibly final) contract. If ownership would be willing to tack that $6.5 million on the end of his deal, when the team may not be so far into the luxury tax, and when he would likely be making much less than the $21 million he is making now, in order to save them the extra cash on the bottom line next year, then it would make sense.
So for example, if Pierce feels that after next season, he should be getting a 2 year, $20 million deal, then he could opt out, and sign a 3 year, $40.5 million deal. If its broken down as $15 million the first year (saving ownership $13 million), and then $12.75 each of his last two seasons, it means Pierce did not lose any money, but he allowed ownership to save a good amount of cash, and possibly even put that cash into the team next year.
Topic: A look at the 2010 cap situation/ why would Pierce opt out? (Read 3719 times)