Pierce re-signs for 4yrs (3 guaranteed 4th year has options for team and Pierce)

[WedmanIsMyHero]

This deal seems like a terrible idea.  The Celtics will be worse next year, not better, because everyone will be a bit older.  That was inevitable.  So maybe you take one last stab at it with the core group.

But now that Celtics have a huge salary albatross in years 3 and 4 of the Pierce deal.  That seems like a bad idea for two reasons:

1. Even with an aging Pierce they'll win more games than they would have won without him, which means a lower draft pick, e.g. lower chance at a franchise player through the draft.

2. Takes up salary room and makes the Celtics less of a free agent player.

Additionally, Pierce's "game" does not seem well suited for a backup role.  Can you imagine him being the 4th fiddle on a Celtics team 4 years from now that miraculously got more young talent?

Sorry for the negativity, but I'm not sure the relative improvement in the change of winning a title next year (versus not having Pierce) is worth the disaster that will strike years 3 and 4.

Maybe Ainge is planning to leave so he won't have to deal with it?

[BballTim]

[quote author=BballTim link=topic=39654.msg798077#msg798077


I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but to say that getting Paul's salary figure down for THIS year is the most important thing seems to be very short-sighted.  This just seems to hurt the team's chances of surrounding Rondo with young talent for his prime years.

  It's a matter of priorities. Is an extra few million in cap space the year KG's contract ends worth more than having a better team when we're trying to win a title?
[/quote]

You think $15 million is "a few"?  I realize that cap space doesn't gaurantee a team will be able to sign great players, but lack of cap space guarantees you WON'T.  I think the team has a chance to go for the title next year, but it's a small chance.  I don't see a small chance for one year being worth ruining your cap for the next three after that.  That's why I would've preferred that Pierce pick up his option and we resign Ray for 2 years.
[/quote]

  So you wanted him to pick up his option this year and then leave at the end of the season?

  And, honestly, the odds of us contending for a title in the 3-4 years after KG leaves aren't very good at all. It's definitely worth going for it.

[BballTim]

Maximum salary for someone with Pierce's years of tenure is nearly $19 million. The $16.5 million number is for players with Lebron's amount of tenure.

I guess I stand corrected.  However, isn't it just the Celtics that can offer this type of max deal?

In any case, this doesn't change my view of things where I don't see anyone offering more than $15 per in the starting year to a player like Pierce.

  I think the papers said the Celts could offer $96M and other teams could offer like $93M over 4 years.

Other teams couldn't offer the same level of raises the C's could.

Most of a team's bird rights advantage comes from their ability to add an extra year.

  Without claiming any expertise in the area, I think I read the number of years Paul could get in a max contract was limited because of his age.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

I'd much rather Pierce have picked up his option and left after next year so the rebuilding could have started.  This team had a great 3 year run.  Maybe they can squeak out a good year next year, but why totally sacrifice the following 2-3 years for that?

[quote author=BballTim link=topic=39654.msg798077#msg798077


I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but to say that getting Paul's salary figure down for THIS year is the most important thing seems to be very short-sighted.  This just seems to hurt the team's chances of surrounding Rondo with young talent for his prime years.

  It's a matter of priorities. Is an extra few million in cap space the year KG's contract ends worth more than having a better team when we're trying to win a title?

You think $15 million is "a few"?  I realize that cap space doesn't gaurantee a team will be able to sign great players, but lack of cap space guarantees you WON'T.  I think the team has a chance to go for the title next year, but it's a small chance.  I don't see a small chance for one year being worth ruining your cap for the next three after that.  That's why I would've preferred that Pierce pick up his option and we resign Ray for 2 years.
[/quote]

  So you wanted him to pick up his option this year and then leave at the end of the season?

  And, honestly, the odds of us contending for a title in the 3-4 years after KG leaves aren't very good at all. It's definitely worth going for it.
[/quote]

[Fafnir]

Maximum salary for someone with Pierce's years of tenure is nearly $19 million. The $16.5 million number is for players with Lebron's amount of tenure.

I guess I stand corrected.  However, isn't it just the Celtics that can offer this type of max deal?

In any case, this doesn't change my view of things where I don't see anyone offering more than $15 per in the starting year to a player like Pierce.

  I think the papers said the Celts could offer $96M and other teams could offer like $93M over 4 years.

Other teams couldn't offer the same level of raises the C's could.

Most of a team's bird rights advantage comes from their ability to add an extra year.

  Without claiming any expertise in the area, I think I read the number of years Paul could get in a max contract was limited because of his age.

Any deal longer than 4 years would have salary cap implications for the first years as it'd be likely the player was retiring by then.

[LooseCannon]

Manu Ginobelli received a 3-year, $39 million extension, so this is basically Ginobelli's extension tacked onto the $21 million Pierce was supposed to received.  If you think that Pierce is a better player than Ginobelli, then the Celtics received a nice hometown discount.  I wouldn't be shocked if it is structured to go down in year 2 then go back up in year 3 to minimize how much money PP loses to the potential lockout.

I'm more concerned about the reported no-trade clause than I am about the years or money (which is the low end of what I thought would be necessarily to retain Pierce).  Maybe Paul will waive it in his final year and let himself be traded as an expiring contract.

Next up is Ray Allen, who ought to receive more money than John Salmons (reportedly set to sign for $5 years/$39 million) but less money than Ginobelli.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

The question isn't just about player quality.  It's about the relative improvement in the chance of winning a title in year 1 of the deal versus the huge lag time it induces in the rebuilding process, which risks alienating Rondo.

Manu Ginobelli received a 3-year, $39 million extension, so this is basically Ginobelli's extension tacked onto the $21 million Pierce was supposed to received.  If you think that Pierce is a better player than Ginobelli, then the Celtics received a nice hometown discount.  I wouldn't be shocked if it is structured to go down in year 2 then go back up in year 3 to minimize how much money PP loses to the potential lockout.

I'm more concerned about the reported no-trade clause than I am about the years or money (which is the low end of what I thought would be necessarily to retain Pierce).  Maybe Paul will waive it in his final year and let himself be traded as an expiring contract.

Next up is Ray Allen, who ought to receive more money than John Salmons (reportedly set to sign for $5 years/$39 million) but less money than Ginobelli.

[Roy Hobbs]

Maximum salary for someone with Pierce's years of tenure is nearly $19 million. The $16.5 million number is for players with Lebron's amount of tenure.

I guess I stand corrected.  However, isn't it just the Celtics that can offer this type of max deal?

In any case, this doesn't change my view of things where I don't see anyone offering more than $15 per in the starting year to a player like Pierce.

  I think the papers said the Celts could offer $96M and other teams could offer like $93M over 4 years.

Other teams couldn't offer the same level of raises the C's could.

Most of a team's bird rights advantage comes from their ability to add an extra year.

Yeah, that extra year is mitigated by the Over-36 stuff.  The difference between a 10.5% raise of the first year value and a 8% raise isn't that much.  I think we're talking about approximately $400k per year over four years.

The difference between what Boston and other teams could offer was that Boston could start around $20.5 million (from memory) because they could give him a 5% raise over last year's salary.  Other teams were restricted to the approximately $19 million "max" for guys with 10+ years experience.

[Shoot the J]

Hopefully the contract includes a facial hair clause. Something that requires Pierce to either go full beard, connect his burns to the patch of hair in the middle of his cheeks, or shave them completely.

Glad you're here to stay PP 

[kozlodoev]

Manu Ginobelli received a 3-year, $39 million extension, so this is basically Ginobelli's extension tacked onto the $21 million Pierce was supposed to received.  If you think that Pierce is a better player than Ginobelli, then the Celtics received a nice hometown discount.  I wouldn't be shocked if it is structured to go down in year 2 then go back up in year 3 to minimize how much money PP loses to the potential lockout.

I'm more concerned about the reported no-trade clause than I am about the years or money (which is the low end of what I thought would be necessarily to retain Pierce).  Maybe Paul will waive it in his final year and let himself be traded as an expiring contract.

Next up is Ray Allen, who ought to receive more money than John Salmons (reportedly set to sign for $5 years/$39 million) but less money than Ginobelli.

It's Ginobili, not Ginobelli.

[nickagneta]

Let's remember why the Celtics think a $15 million salary for the first two years would be significant money. In all likelihood the Celtics are going to be in the luxury tax once again and for the foreseeable future.

So that $6 million savings each year(assuming a level $15.25 million salary each year) constitutes a $12 million savings for the team in just one year and a $24 million savings over the first two years of the contract to the team.

That is HUGE!!!!

[Roy Hobbs]

Let's remember why the Celtics think a $15 million salary for the first two years would be significant money. In all likelihood the Celtics are going to be in the luxury tax once again and for the foreseeable future.

So that $6 million savings each year(assuming a level $15.25 million salary each year) constitutes a $12 million savings for the team in just one year and a $24 million savings over the first two years of the contract to the team.

That is HUGE!!!!

... and for those fans saying "who cares, it's not my money", keep in mind that Wyc doesn't have an unlimited budget.  Last season, he spent about $14 million in luxury tax, which was a lot more than he'd spent previously.  That's probably an unsustainable budget for the team, which means that if we want to see the team utilize all its options (i.e., trading Rasheed's contract, re-signing Ray, and using the MLE), then we need to save money somewhere else.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

Just remember this in 2014-2015, when Pierce finally leaves, media reports suggest Rondo is sick of losing and is about to leave, and the Celtics are about to start a long, long rebuilding process.

Let's remember why the Celtics think a $15 million salary for the first two years would be significant money. In all likelihood the Celtics are going to be in the luxury tax once again and for the foreseeable future.

So that $6 million savings each year(assuming a level $15.25 million salary each year) constitutes a $12 million savings for the team in just one year and a $24 million savings over the first two years of the contract to the team.

That is HUGE!!!!

[winsomme]

I'm sorry, but 4 guaranteed years is not good. I'm excited to have Pierce back, but we're going to be paying Pierce 15 million dollars when he is 36 years old.

So what?  We'd probably be a rebuilding lottery team then anyway.

Exactly. This what Danny and Paul needed to do in order to free up money for this and next season.

Down the road we will be rebuilding and at worst Paul's contract becomes an expiring.

This is now the second big piece in the off season. and it happened pretty fast so Danny can get in on successive moves right away.

[the_Bird]

Manu Ginobelli received a 3-year, $39 million extension, so this is basically Ginobelli's extension tacked onto the $21 million Pierce was supposed to received.  If you think that Pierce is a better player than Ginobelli, then the Celtics received a nice hometown discount.  I wouldn't be shocked if it is structured to go down in year 2 then go back up in year 3 to minimize how much money PP loses to the potential lockout.

I'm more concerned about the reported no-trade clause than I am about the years or money (which is the low end of what I thought would be necessarily to retain Pierce).  Maybe Paul will waive it in his final year and let himself be traded as an expiring contract.

Next up is Ray Allen, who ought to receive more money than John Salmons (reportedly set to sign for $5 years/$39 million) but less money than Ginobelli.

It's Ginobili, not Ginobelli.

It's the internet, not a spelling bee.