Here's To Pierce!!! He is Unprecedented for This One!!!

[clover]

Pierce has helped them out this year on the luxury tax.  That saves the franchise some money, but doesn't affect what the team is allowed to spend on anyone.  The team has skyrocketed in value  under the current ownership in part because they were willing to spend more when the team was close.  Same should apply next year if, indeed, the team is in fact going to be competitive.

I imagine Pierce left up to $10 million on the table to stay a Celtic--because he wanted to stay a Celtic.  We should be happy that he feels good about a team and town that has been very supportive of him as well.  But for those not certain the terms will be good for the team 3-4 years out, there's really no reason for them to genuflect in appreciation for the deal he has.

If anything, instead of reportedly back-loading the contract, the ownership should have front-loaded it, taking the luxury-tax hit this year but better positioning the team for the salary cap 3 and 4 years out.  Loyal Celtics fans have greatly boosted the value of their asset the last few years, and while I like their being penny-wise with the long-term contracts they sign, I don't think they should be pound-foolish in paying out another year of luxury tax at the detriment of the team roster 3-4 years from now.

[clover]

You really think he took a 20-30 million dollar discount to stay here?  You think other teams would pay him over 20 million per year for 4 years when he is past his prime when a new CBA is coming?  I know there are some dumb GMs out there, but I disagree that he could have gotten 20-30 million more.  I think he maybe could have gotten 70 million and that would have been a bad signing for another team. 

I like the thought that his discount was loyalty to Boston, but its also possible he took it to remain on a contender also.  If I've made over $100 million over my career, and I had the choice of making 60 million on a contender or 70 million on a rebuilding team, I'd take the lesser money for the contender even if I had no loyalty to the team/city.

It is unclear (but possible) whether or not any team would have been willing to pay Pierce $80+ million or $90+ million + it doesn't appear that Pierce engaged with any other teams so he didn't have a firm grasp of what they may offer him either.

It's too hard to say how much money Pierce sacrificed to stay here in Boston. I don't think he even knows (which is idiotic and the wrong way to run a negotiation).

It isn't idiotic to prefer personal satisfaction/happiness to mere dollars.  In fact, as you--if you are lucky--win learn in about 75 more incarnations, it is idiotic not to.

Pierce would have had a strong chance to play for another contender.

Giving up $10-15 million or more ... when all you have to do is work in another city for 4 years ...

I think not pursuing and properly evaluating those options before reaching your decision is foolish.

I think knowing he wanted to stay here and foregoing the potential $10M-plus was wise on his part.  Too many wealthy people think the most additional money possible will make them happiest, when that is not so often the case.  I give him credit for knowing what's really valuable.  At the same time I wouldn't have blamed him if, like Ray, he had played it out and likely taken the money either.

[Levis107]

People are crazy if they think Pierce couldn't get more than 61 million over 4 years on the market.  Joe Johnson is staying put in Atlanta.  There's a good chance Lebron and Wade could stay put as well.  Rudy Gay is staying in Memphis.  You know what that means?  A lot of teams with a ton of cap space desperate to make a move after striking out.  You don't think the Clippers or even a team like the Nets would overpay for Pierce after saving all this cap room and having nothing to show for it? What kind of message would that send to their fans?   Show Pierce a little respect, he didn't even try to negotiate with another team and he's taking 5+ million less this season.

[hpantazo]

Pierce has helped them out this year on the luxury tax.  That saves the franchise some money, but doesn't affect what the team is allowed to spend on anyone.  The team has skyrocketed in value  under the current ownership in part because they were willing to spend more when the team was close.  Same should apply next year if, indeed, the team is in fact going to be competitive.

I imagine Pierce left up to $10 million on the table to stay a Celtic--because he wanted to stay a Celtic.  We should be happy that he feels good about a team and town that has been very supportive of him as well.  But for those not certain the terms will be good for the team 3-4 years out, there's really no reason for them to genuflect in appreciation for the deal he has.

If anything, instead of reportedly back-loading the contract, the ownership should have front-loaded it, taking the luxury-tax hit this year but better positioning the team for the salary cap 3 and 4 years out.  Loyal Celtics fans have greatly boosted the value of their asset the last few years, and while I like their being penny-wise with the long-term contracts they sign, I don't think they should be pound-foolish in paying out another year of luxury tax at the detriment of the team roster 3-4 years from now.

excellent points clover. I do agree that years 3 and 4 will hurt the team somewhat, but in general, I'm not saying that's the case with you, but in general, I believe many fans are overreacting to the idea that keeping the big three will kill our future. This probably comes from the long period of time it took the celtics to recover after the original big three, but there were a number of factors other than the contracts of Bird, McHale, and Parish that killed the rebuilding process. Specifically, the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis, and then the subsequent refusal of Stern to grant the team cap relief for Lewis which is still an unbelievable anti-celtic bias, followed by terrible contract signings and poor draft picks by Chris Wallace and Pitino.

Let's not forget Eric Montross, Acie Earl, Jon Barry (who refused to play for the celtics), Ron Mercer, Billups (who was tossed too quickly by Pitino), Kedrick Brown as a number 11 pick, and Joe Johnson as a #10 pick in the same year, and then trading Joe Johnson for a cheap playoff run for ticket revenue. Big contracts to Rick Fox, Dee Brown, Vin Baker, Dominique Wilikins, etc. killed our rebuilding as well.

When Red kept the original big three, the celtics were in great position to win and rebuild at the same time. They had Len Bias. That was a crippling blow, stuff happens. Keeping the new big three for another couple of years is not what will make or break or rebuilding, and it may give us another chance at one more banner.

[Surferdad]

You really think he took a 20-30 million dollar discount to stay here?  You think other teams would pay him over 20 million per year for 4 years when he is past his prime when a new CBA is coming?  I know there are some dumb GMs out there, but I disagree that he could have gotten 20-30 million more.  I think he maybe could have gotten 70 million and that would have been a bad signing for another team.  

I like the thought that his discount was loyalty to Boston, but its also possible he took it to remain on a contender also.  If I've made over $100 million over my career, and I had the choice of making 60 million on a contender or 70 million on a rebuilding team, I'd take the lesser money for the contender even if I had no loyalty to the team/city.

and the criticism for Pierce just keeps on coming. Of course he wouldn't get 80 million for 4 years, but he would easily get 70-72 million. Look at what Dirk is getting to stay in Dallas. It may not be 20 million, but 10-12 million is still a lot of money to give up, especially when it's the last NBA contract you will sign.  Also, what's with the shot at his celtics pride, saying he may have done it just to be on a contender? He is the one guy since the Bird era that has always displayed celtics pride throughout his career, and repeatedly mentions how important it is for him to cement his celtics legacy. He could have also had a chance to go to a team with one of the other big FA's and still be on a contender. If this was Kobe, we would here about it all over the place about how he took less money to help the lakers, but Pierce gets criticised by his own fans, just great.

I think you're right, he did leave money on the table--because the C's rightly wouldn't have signed him for what he could have  got on the open market.  People love Pierce and I don't hear anyone really criticizing him.  The angst is worry over whether the C's gave him a contract that we'll be regretting in a year or two.

Would those same people regret having to pay Paul 22 million for this season if he hadn't opted out and it meant not being able to add any talent to the roster or even re-sign Ray?

criticizing a below market value contract for a star player that also helps add talent to a team just doesn't make any sense to me...

They'd still have the MLE and Sheed's contract to trade.  Wyc has said he's willing to spend money if and when they are truly competitive.  So if Pierce saved the owners a few mil, that shouldn't necessarily impact the team they would have fielded.

the money freed up by Pierce is so we can use the MLE and Sheed's contract to take back salary.

I mean, with Pierce and Ray alone we are going to be right at the lux tax level already with what seven roster spots still to fill.

They're over the cap already, the reported first-year savings on Pierce doesn't affect the salary coming back from a S&T (or what's paid for the MLE) at all.

they're over the regular cap, not the lux cap (which they also certainly go over again)...

but what it does affect is how much over the lux cap they go which in the end is a double savings and more room for Danny to spend (operationally speaking)...

You and clover are correct.  They are constrained on what they can spend and the trade limitations 9matching within 25%, but in the end the smaller contract for Pierce for 2010 reduces the OVERALL salary of the team in 2010and thus has the potential to save on the luxury tax dollars going out.

[clover]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

[clover]

Pierce has helped them out this year on the luxury tax.  That saves the franchise some money, but doesn't affect what the team is allowed to spend on anyone.  The team has skyrocketed in value  under the current ownership in part because they were willing to spend more when the team was close.  Same should apply next year if, indeed, the team is in fact going to be competitive.

I imagine Pierce left up to $10 million on the table to stay a Celtic--because he wanted to stay a Celtic.  We should be happy that he feels good about a team and town that has been very supportive of him as well.  But for those not certain the terms will be good for the team 3-4 years out, there's really no reason for them to genuflect in appreciation for the deal he has.

If anything, instead of reportedly back-loading the contract, the ownership should have front-loaded it, taking the luxury-tax hit this year but better positioning the team for the salary cap 3 and 4 years out.  Loyal Celtics fans have greatly boosted the value of their asset the last few years, and while I like their being penny-wise with the long-term contracts they sign, I don't think they should be pound-foolish in paying out another year of luxury tax at the detriment of the team roster 3-4 years from now.

excellent points clover. I do agree that years 3 and 4 will hurt the team somewhat, but in general, I'm not saying that's the case with you, but in general, I believe many fans are overreacting to the idea that keeping the big three will kill our future. This probably comes from the long period of time it took the celtics to recover after the original big three, but there were a number of factors other than the contracts of Bird, McHale, and Parish that killed the rebuilding process. Specifically, the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis, and then the subsequent refusal of Stern to grant the team cap relief for Lewis which is still an unbelievable anti-celtic bias, followed by terrible contract signings and poor draft picks by Chris Wallace and Pitino.

Let's not forget Eric Montross, Acie Earl, Jon Barry (who refused to play for the celtics), Ron Mercer, Billups (who was tossed too quickly by Pitino), Kedrick Brown as a number 11 pick, and Joe Johnson as a #10 pick in the same year, and then trading Joe Johnson for a cheap playoff run for ticket revenue. Big contracts to Rick Fox, Dee Brown, Vin Baker, Dominique Wilikins, etc. killed our rebuilding as well.

When Red kept the original big three, the celtics were in great position to win and rebuild at the same time. They had Len Bias. That was a crippling blow, stuff happens. Keeping the new big three for another couple of years is not what will make or break or rebuilding, and it may give us another chance at one more banner.

What a painful reminder of all those Celtics years in the desert!  And you're right, it took a whole series of bad decisions to get into the ditch and stay there for so long.  On the other hand, it's already a little painful to watch the even still-competitive ancient Celts out there, I understand how fans are imagining only increased frustration with it 2 to 3 and now even 4 years out.  I think KG does hang up his size-17 Reeboks, or whatever he wears, at the end of his contract and I think they hold the line on 2 years for Ray, but still I expect we'll be bemoaning Pierce's contract before it's off the books--cause the benefits from it will be eclipsed after the first 2 years.

[winsomme]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

What exactly do you mean by backloading?

I mean, the average for Paul's salary is 15 per....just the average is significantly lower than what he was set to make this year at 22 mil.

if they're paying 17/18 mil in the final year of his contract, he's still not making break the bank type money....

[vinnie]

You really think he took a 20-30 million dollar discount to stay here?  You think other teams would pay him over 20 million per year for 4 years when he is past his prime when a new CBA is coming?  I know there are some dumb GMs out there, but I disagree that he could have gotten 20-30 million more.  I think he maybe could have gotten 70 million and that would have been a bad signing for another team. 

I like the thought that his discount was loyalty to Boston, but its also possible he took it to remain on a contender also.  If I've made over $100 million over my career, and I had the choice of making 60 million on a contender or 70 million on a rebuilding team, I'd take the lesser money for the contender even if I had no loyalty to the team/city.

It is unclear (but possible) whether or not any team would have been willing to pay Pierce $80+ million or $90+ million + it doesn't appear that Pierce engaged with any other teams so he didn't have a firm grasp of what they may offer him either.

It's too hard to say how much money Pierce sacrificed to stay here in Boston. I don't think he even knows (which is idiotic and the wrong way to run a negotiation).

It isn't idiotic to prefer personal satisfaction/happiness to mere dollars.  In fact, as you--if you are lucky--win learn in about 75 more incarnations, it is idiotic not to.

Pierce would have had a strong chance to play for another contender.

Giving up $10-15 million or more ... when all you have to do is work in another city for 4 years ...

I think not pursuing and properly evaluating those options before reaching your decision is foolish.

I don't know about you guys, but a couple of times in my career I have passed on offers worth more money to stay at a company at which I really enjoyed working. That is basically what Pierce did. He knows where he is happy and he saw no need to neogtiate anywhere else. Besides, having already earned $100 million-plus in his career, Paul Pierce already has more money than he will ever need for two lifetimes. I don't see Pierce pulling an Antoine and being bankrupt in 5 years. The guy is smart and I am sure has invested much of his money wisely.

[clover]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

What exactly do you mean by backloading?

I mean, the average for Paul's salary is 15 per....just the average is significantly lower than what he was set to make this year at 22 mil.

if they're paying 17/18 mil in the final year of his contract, he's still not making break the bank type money....

They're already over the cap now, so if they wanted to minimize their cap damage at the end of the deal they should have paid him more at the front and less at the back.  If they're crowing about saving money on the luxury tax this year, that means that's not what they've done.  And the only way that saves them money in the long run is if they are not paying the luxury tax in the later years.

[winsomme]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

What exactly do you mean by backloading?

I mean, the average for Paul's salary is 15 per....just the average is significantly lower than what he was set to make this year at 22 mil.

if they're paying 17/18 mil in the final year of his contract, he's still not making break the bank type money....

They're already over the cap now, so if they wanted to minimize their cap damage at the end of the deal they should have paid him more at the front and less at the back.  If they're crowing about saving money on the luxury tax this year, that means that's not what they've done.  And the only way that saves them money in the long run is if they are not paying the luxury tax in the later years.

"saving" isn't really the way to look at it....it's more about freeing up operational capital...which certainly what going from 22 down to 14/15 did.

[clover]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

What exactly do you mean by backloading?

I mean, the average for Paul's salary is 15 per....just the average is significantly lower than what he was set to make this year at 22 mil.

if they're paying 17/18 mil in the final year of his contract, he's still not making break the bank type money....

They're already over the cap now, so if they wanted to minimize their cap damage at the end of the deal they should have paid him more at the front and less at the back.  If they're crowing about saving money on the luxury tax this year, that means that's not what they've done.  And the only way that saves them money in the long run is if they are not paying the luxury tax in the later years.

"saving" isn't really the way to look at it....it's more about freeing up operational capital...which certainly what going from 22 down to 14/15 did.

They just went to game 7 in the finals, they've got plenty of operational capital.

[winsomme]

Another point: the only way backloading Pierce's contract saves on the luxury tax is if the C's aren't paying the luxury tax in future years.  That is, if they're managing their payroll more like a small-market team and aren't investing as much as they have in the roster.  Not a great sign.

What exactly do you mean by backloading?

I mean, the average for Paul's salary is 15 per....just the average is significantly lower than what he was set to make this year at 22 mil.

if they're paying 17/18 mil in the final year of his contract, he's still not making break the bank type money....

They're already over the cap now, so if they wanted to minimize their cap damage at the end of the deal they should have paid him more at the front and less at the back.  If they're crowing about saving money on the luxury tax this year, that means that's not what they've done.  And the only way that saves them money in the long run is if they are not paying the luxury tax in the later years.

"saving" isn't really the way to look at it....it's more about freeing up operational capital...which certainly what going from 22 down to 14/15 did.

They just went to game 7 in the finals, they've got plenty of operational capital.

I guess that's the real point of contention then....I think there is a limit to how far over the luxury tax they can go and thus Paul's contract reduction at the very least for this season can be the difference between adding and not adding key pieces for next season's run at a Title...

and honestly, clover, I think this point will be clearer when we look at the payroll for the upcoming season.....If Paul had not opted out and renegotiated, it would have been another 15 mil on top of that number.

[Papatrichs]

retiring as a celtic beats havin than retiring as a maverick.

[Kiorrik]

I know my words go largely unheard here, but I do feel this is a good signing.

Pierce will retire a Celtic (that's pretty much guaranteed now right?), we get a bit more cap space and it would be hard (or impossible?) to sign someone of his skill for the same money.

Ainge knows what he's doing.