Quote

In an effort to think outside the box and find away for the Celtics to obtain Joe Johnson, or another free agent for that matter,  I came up with a free-thinking plan. Unfortunately, I was not thinking at all.

First of all, I used the current salary cap number of $60 million. But the salary cap will be reduced this offseason, probably to somewhere between $52 million and $55 million. A major brain cramp on my part.

Secondly, as Danny Ainge explained to me, in order for the Celtics to re-sign Paul Pierce if he opts out of the final year of his contract -- which I'd advocated in order for them to open enough cap space to bring in Johnson or another top free agent -- they'd have to do so before they signed an outside free agent.  Even if Pierce opted out, his $21 million would remain on the cap until he was re-signed by the Celtics or signed by another team. I didn't think a players' salary would remain on the cap if he opted out, and I also didn't realize they lost the Larry Bird Exemption if this occured.

I would like to thank Danny for my cap education. Again, I apologize.

However, this does not weaken my belief that the Celts will be doing everything they can to get Joe Johnson. I've been told Johnson is not thrilled with Atlanta's weak fan base. A sign-and-trade would be an option if Johnson wanted shoot his way out of Atlanta.

Despite my goof up, please believe me that the Celts are not going to sit back and simply get old.

My apologies for my misinformation. This is what happens when  a loose-lipped guy like me has a blackberry.

Link.

I love how he name drops Danny Ainge, when he could have clarified this information in 100 places, including from Larry Coon, Celticsblog, the text of the CBA, and probably countless numbers of colleagues.  Still, an apology is an apology.

What a turd.

By the way, he's still wrong here:

I didn't think a players' salary would remain on the cap if he opted out, and I also didn't realize they lost the Larry Bird Exemption if this occured.

The team *doesn't* lose their Bird rights if there's a "cap hold" / "free agent charge" against their salary cap.  Essentially, it's the very existence of Bird rights (and other cap exceptions) that causes the cap charge to happen in the first place.

The team only loses its Bird rights if it renounces Pierce, which would in turn free up a small amount of money to sign a free agent (but nobody of Joe Johnson's caliber).

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. 

I don't forgive him, sorry.  He persisted with his error for days and days, notwithstanding that it was repeatedly pointed out to him.  He's an amateur and a buffoon, and so is Dickerson.

BTW, I made a similar error, but when Chris pointed it out to me, I went back to Coon's FAQ immediately and corrected myself.  Cap holds are complicated.  But Tanguay didn't even know who Larry Coon was.

My understanding is that the original idea of having Pierce "opt out" came from Wyc Grousbeck.

My understanding is that the original idea of having Pierce "opt out" came from Wyc Grousbeck.

I believe all Wyc said was that there was a scenario where the C's could get under the cap.  Then the speculation started.  But this was all before Rondo signed (and I believe before Wallace and Davis signed as well).

As for Tanguay, I am glad he saw sense.  I have a feeling he was forced to by his coworkers (whom I happened to write strongly worded emails to, asking them to take the garbage Tanguay had posted on CSNNE's site, offline), but he finally saw sense, and that's what matters.  Now, hopefully he will actually do the research, before making the claims again.