This scenerio has been talked about at some length, mostly pertaining to creating cap space to sign Free Agents -- which as we're all aware is essentially impossible.

But considering that potential trade scenarios involving Ray Allen would likely require us to take on signnficant salary for 2010-11 and potentially beyond, the question is still very relevant in terms of ownerships tolerance for luxury tax.

So let's say Wyc and Danny went to Paul this week and said, "Paul, we have the opportunity to do a deal that could make us championship contenders for the next 2-3 years. We could add Kevin Martin, but to do so we need to agree to take Nocioni AND John Salmons from the Bulls, so the Kings can get Ty Thomas. We'll be sad to see Ray go, but we feel it's what we need to do to win. However, considering the lux tax, we may not be able to afford it. Would you take a little less next year to secure staying with the Cs at a high salary for 2 additional years to help us make this happen?"

I'm curious what the answer would be. I think we all know Paul is not going to take a major paycut. But would sacrifice $5-7mil next season to lock in 2 more years at $15mil per?

This would make a bigger trade of this nature more feasible. Let's say the Cs did the following trade:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ykr83zc

Their payroll would be around $89.5mil assuming their current commitments including Pierce not opting out of his deal, Salmons doing the same, picking up Walker's option, and the Cs signing their 1st and 2nd round picks. The Cs would have 12 players under contract.

Considering their current payroll of $84mil seems to be pretty much maxed, that scenario would appear prohibitive considering no addtional signings (say, Marquis and Pargo). If Pierce were to agree now to tear up his last year and signed a 3 year, $45mil extension, would it cause Wyc to go for it? If the first year were at $14mil, the Cs would then be at $82mil and could hopefully resign Daniels and / or Pargo with whatever of the MLE.

Would he do it? What would it have to look like for him to agree? He'd be leaving $6-7mil on the table in my example in order to guarantee an additional $31 over 2 years, or a net of $24mil or so. $12mil a year is below market value, but does Pierce care considering his obvius desire to stay a Celtic and the pending CBA negotation?