Pierce's New Contract-How does that affect the Cap?

[Pucaccia]

Now that Pierce is signed. Does this create cap room now and in the future? Does it allow the Celtics to be more aggressive in Free Agency this year/in the future? I'm so confused!  Thanks...

[droopdog7]

Now that Pierce is signed. Does this create cap room now and in the future? Does it allow the Celtics to be more aggressive in Free Agency this year/in the future? I'm so confused!  Thanks...

No cap room this year regardless.  Now we will have less cap room after this year than we would have otherwise.  But in the end, what was the choice?  We really had none other I don't think.

[EmilioBonilla]

It also depends on how much he's signed for, if paul signed for half of what he was making then our cap is lower than before

[Roy Hobbs]

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

[WedmanIsMyHero]

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

[Who]

Now -- no more cap space. Celtics have MLE left and rights to their free agents (Ray, TA, Nate).

Future -- they just gave away $13-16 million of their potential cap space in 2012 and 2013. By the time they spend their MLE, that could increase to $20 million in reduced cap flexibility.

[Vino]

I do not believe we have "Bird Rights" on Nate. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he coming off a one year deal?

[Who]

I do not believe we have "Bird Rights" on Nate. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he coming off a one year deal?

The Celtics have Nate's non-bird rights which are 120% of his previous year's pay ($4 million) ... that should cover any possible contract extension.

[Roy Hobbs]

I do not believe we have "Bird Rights" on Nate. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he coming off a one year deal?

The Celtics have Nate's non-bird rights which are 120% of his previous year's pay ($4 million) ... that should cover any possible contract extension.

Plus, we can give Nate a 120% raise over his $1 million games played / playoff bonus, meaning he could earn as much as $6 million in his first year of an extension.  That's over the MLE amount.

[Jaycelt]

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

Tons of shots and dominating the ball?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.  

http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/2009/index.html

[WedmanIsMyHero]

Fair.  But come on - how many times has Pierce gone 1 on 4 during a dysfunctional end of quarter play over the last decade?  I'm just saying that that will look even worse 2-3 years from now when we imagine the rebuilding that the Celtics already could have done and compare it to what the Celtics achieve in 2010-2011.

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

Tons of shots and dominating the ball?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.  

http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/2009/index.html

[Spilling Green Dye]

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

This was my exact concern as well, and it is troubling to me.  I wanted Pierce to stay with his original contract and at least sign for 1-2 years after that at a reasonable contract. 

Now, the Celtics will be very much hampered in years 3 and 4 of his contract, and it stinks.  This only helps Wyc not pay as much luxury tax this year.. that's it. 

Personally I route for the Celtics, not Pierce, hence I go to celticsblog.com.  This signing in no way helps the Celtics in years 3 and 4 of the contract. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

This was my exact concern as well, and it is troubling to me.  I wanted Pierce to stay with his original contract and at least sign for 1-2 years after that at a reasonable contract. 

Now, the Celtics will be very much hampered in years 3 and 4 of his contract, and it stinks.  This only helps Wyc not pay as much luxury tax this year.. that's it. 

Personally I route for the Celtics, not Pierce, hence I go to celticsblog.com.  This signing in no way helps the Celtics in years 3 and 4 of the contract. 

Well, it maximizes our chances of winning now, and allows a lifelong Celtic to retire in green.  We're not winning anything in three or four years anyway, so I'd rather root Pierce on in his latter years.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

With all due respect, your claim about whether the Celtics can win in years 3 and 4 of Pierce's contract seems like a red herring.  The critical thing is the *delay* in rebuilding.

Put it this way - are you willing to trade a *decline* in the Celtics performance from this year to next year (which realistically is the most likely outcome - it's really hard to make the finals) in exchange for delaying the *beginning* of rebuilding the Celtics until 2014-2015.

And say that process takes 3 years, which is laughably short and requires a lot of luck.

So now it is 2017-2018.

Is that really worth it? 

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

This was my exact concern as well, and it is troubling to me.  I wanted Pierce to stay with his original contract and at least sign for 1-2 years after that at a reasonable contract. 

Now, the Celtics will be very much hampered in years 3 and 4 of his contract, and it stinks.  This only helps Wyc not pay as much luxury tax this year.. that's it. 

Personally I route for the Celtics, not Pierce, hence I go to celticsblog.com.  This signing in no way helps the Celtics in years 3 and 4 of the contract. 

Well, it maximizes our chances of winning now, and allows a lifelong Celtic to retire in green.  We're not winning anything in three or four years anyway, so I'd rather root Pierce on in his latter years.

[Roy Hobbs]

With all due respect, your claim about whether the Celtics can win in years 3 and 4 of Pierce's contract seems like a red herring.  The critical thing is the *delay* in rebuilding.

Put it this way - are you willing to trade a *decline* in the Celtics performance from this year to next year (which realistically is the most likely outcome - it's really hard to make the finals) in exchange for delaying the *beginning* of rebuilding the Celtics until 2014-2015.

And say that process takes 3 years, which is laughably short and requires a lot of luck.

So now it is 2017-2018.

Is that really worth it? 

Anyone want to talk me down from the ledge here?  The Celtics are getting older, not better.  How are they going to pick someone up to win a title this year?  And then just how bad will it be years 3 and 4 when an aging Pierce is still taking tons of shots and dominating the ball?

If everything had broken right for the Celtics (i.e., Rasheed retired with no money left on the cap), the Celtics would have been looking at approximately $16.5 million in cap room, and would have had to renounce all their free agents.

Pierce's new deal is, at minimum, over $13 million in the first year.  That swallows up whatever cap room there would have been, meaning that the only outside free agents we sign will be with the MLE or the minimum salary.

(We can also upgrade through trades and sign-and-trades.)

This was my exact concern as well, and it is troubling to me.  I wanted Pierce to stay with his original contract and at least sign for 1-2 years after that at a reasonable contract. 

Now, the Celtics will be very much hampered in years 3 and 4 of his contract, and it stinks.  This only helps Wyc not pay as much luxury tax this year.. that's it. 

Personally I route for the Celtics, not Pierce, hence I go to celticsblog.com.  This signing in no way helps the Celtics in years 3 and 4 of the contract. 

Well, it maximizes our chances of winning now, and allows a lifelong Celtic to retire in green.  We're not winning anything in three or four years anyway, so I'd rather root Pierce on in his latter years.

I can't complain too much about year 4, especially since it may not be guaranteed.

As for delaying rebuilding, I'm 100% cool with that.  I saw rebuilding.  It stunk.  I'm not looking forward to years of tanking for draft picks or talking about the next Gerald Green as a savior.  I'd much rather compete for a title in the short term, even if the chances are fairly slim.  I'm convinced that, as slim as those chances may be, they're a heck of a lot better than they will be in three years if we turn into the Clippers East.