If Pierce could be convinced to 'opt out', what sort of new deal would he get?

[ssspence]

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?

[JSD]

What about a 2 year deal that aligns him with KG for $18 Million a season? Or a 4 year $60 million dollar deal ($15 per)? Both would help the Celtics and provide incentive for Paul.

[Brickowski]

I wouldn't pay him anything close to that, which is why he won't opt out.

If I were advising players, I'd tell them to maximize their income now, and put some aside because I expect a lockout in 2011.

[ssspence]

I wouldn't pay him anything close to that, which is why he won't opt out.

If I were advising players, I'd tell them to maximize their income now, and put some aside because I expect a lockout in 2011.

Would players be paid during the lockout? If I remember correctly, the owners won their case NOT to pay the players during the last one...

[Eddie20]

A dream scenario for the C's would to have him opt out and take a 2 year deal. This way his contract does not impact us in the summer of 12. We then would have plenty of leverage in re-signing him that summer as he would be 35. We could give him a very Celtic friendly 2 or 3 yr deal to ensure he retires a C.

[Chris]

I have a feeling Pierce will be the one volunteering to opt out, since he could make more money in the longrun.  I just am not sure the C's would be willing to pay that price.

My guess is for Pierce to opt out, he would likely need a new contract along the lines of 3 years, $45 million, if not more.  

My guess is Danny does not want Pierce on the hook for more than $10 million per year after 2011-2012, when KG comes off the books.  So this is probably a no-go.

Now, what could work is something along the lines of a 2-year $35 million deal, with a partially guaranteed third year, or something like that.

[moiso]

Why would he take a pay cut to sign those guys?  That still doesn't make us title contenders if KG doesn't improve.

[Who]

Pierce has one more season at $21.5 million and he has a good case to earn $10-12 million per annum on a short extension. So around $40-45 million over three years.

The Celtics would have to offer an extra year, four years, offering a comparable, or slightly increased, payday to make it worthwhile for Pierce. I'm thinking $12 million over four years.

It's better for Boston if Paul doesn't opt out so that they can avoid that extra season at an eight figure payday. I suppose they could make a decreasing contract to make the final year more palatable. It's still not a pretty situation to be in. Better if he sticks with his current contract.

[PLamb]

I wrote a very very similar thread this past weekend

My theory, he opts out trying to avoid being a free agent after a major length labor dispute which could render him closing in on 35 years old and having to convince the Celtics management and/or other suitors that he is still a viable player after sitting on his hands for close to or over a year

I think if he opts out its a 4 year deal with decelerating scale for somewhere in the $40-$45 million range with years of:

$15 million/$12 million(much of which he doesn't see because of a lockout)/$8-10 million/$5-8 million

[BballTim]

  Wouldn't we lose the MLE if Paul opted out and we re-signed him?

[ssspence]

  Wouldn't we lose the MLE if Paul opted out and we re-signed him?

Excellent question. Anyone?

[Chris]

Why would he take a pay cut to sign those guys?  That still doesn't make us title contenders if KG doesn't improve.

Pierce takes a pay guy to make more money.  If he waits until 2011 to sign his next contract, he might lose a lot of cash, because of the new CBA, and he would be one more year into decrepitness.  However, if he opts out this season, signs an extension starting at a lower number, in order to save the owners some luxury tax money (if he signs for $15 million, that is saving ownership over $10 million), then he could concievably make that money up on the back end.  

[PLamb]

I think if he opts out and resigns before Boston renounces any of its free agents the cap holds on the free agents would still put us over the salary cap so we would not lose the MLE

That said in sspence's scenario, in making that trade, we are over the cap so all he is doing is reducing payroll so once again we are still over the cap and probably not using that much of the MLE anyway

[Who]

  Wouldn't we lose the MLE if Paul opted out and we re-signed him?

Excellent question. Anyone?

No, the team wouldn't. His cap hold keeps the Celtics above the cap and his extension likely will too. No cap space created.

KG + Rondo + Perk + Sheed + BBD = $41.63 million.
Then add Walker + first round draft pick + empty roster spots = $4.23 million
Total = $45.85 million

Pierce's cap hold will be well over $20 million. Over the cap. His new contract will be around $12 million, I think is the consensus, which would give the Celtics a $57 million payroll. Over the cap.

No cap space available. So all the exceptions would still be in tact.

[droopdog7]

No way this team should take John Salmons and Nocioni.  No way.  Martin is not worth that.