Question on sheed's contract, can we hold onto it through trade deadline?

[dthizz]

Long time reader, first time poster.

I know there has been a lot of talks about trading Rasheed's contract, and I understand the salary cap situation in terms of trading him for equal value moneywise.

But what if we don't get rid of him before the season starts? Can someone clarify this? Can we hold onto the contract until the trade deadline where teams will be more willing to shop their players for cap relief? Would he have to play/ show up/ practice?

Just looking for some clarification.

[Roy Hobbs]

There's some discussion of that going on here:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=40784.msg820814#msg820814

We can always trade Rasheed's contract, just like any other player's.  It's an open question on whether the league would allow us to wait until February, trade him, have him "retire", and then have the league give either us or the acquiring team cap relief.  This seems like a circumvention of the salary cap rules, in my opinion (and, at the very least, it would probably cost us a substantial amount of cash, since we'd presumably be paying Rasheed's contract.  I suppose we could suspend him for not showing up to preserve the fiction, but it's pretty transparent.)

[Jon]

I've been asking this for weeks, and there doesn't really seem to be a clear cut answer.  I think it'd be one thing if we had kept this hush, hush from the beginning and started talking about Sheed's bad back. 

But now everyone and their brother knows that Sheed wants to retire.  I don't know what we'd even do with him until February that wouldn't look suspicious. 

And the problem is that this isn't some quick thing that we could do before the league has time to develop a policy for it. If Sheed's still on the roster in November, the league will have time to figure out how to handle it.  \

Plus, right now, we're in a good position to get a player back with only 1-2 years on his deal.  The longer we wait, the more likely teams are only going to be interested in dealing us players with 3-4 years deals that will potentially hurt our rebuilding process. 

[steelbos]

I really don't see this as an option with Perkins being out til at least mid February. That leaves us with JO and KG who at anytime can get nicked and have to sit, and Davis with Erden as the only backups.

[guava_wrench]

The team would be throwing away over $7 million dollars if they did that, so I don't see them being that irresponsible. That would be a desperation move. That $7m can be used elsewhere.

I could see this being done if Bill Gates owned a team and didn't mind pouring his own money into the team. A team like that would be only concerned with flexibility around the salary cap.

Our owners aren't that rich.

[anthony83]

I honestly do not know what will happen with Sheed, I think he was still not clear what to do, if he has not made his retirement official this means something.
I wish again, Boston needs Sheed, I do not think he had it clear why Pierce, Ray and Rivers had not yet resigned, but now they're all over again maybe your mind has changed after the 7th game, [dang] 7th, we should to have won
I have the hope that Sheed returns, but now for the playoffs.
I have a good feeling, is that but we are left only with KG, JO and Big Baby, Perk is out until February.

[ssspence]

There's some discussion of that going on here:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=40784.msg820814#msg820814

We can always trade Rasheed's contract, just like any other player's.  It's an open question on whether the league would allow us to wait until February, trade him, have him "retire", and then have the league give either us or the acquiring team cap relief.  This seems like a circumvention of the salary cap rules, in my opinion (and, at the very least, it would probably cost us a substantial amount of cash, since we'd presumably be paying Rasheed's contract.  I suppose we could suspend him for not showing up to preserve the fiction, but it's pretty transparent.)

But if we're paying him and he's taking a roster spot, what difference does it make? Why is sign-n-trading a long retired player like Van Horn any less of a circumvention?

[17wasEZ]

My understanding is that either:

1) Sheed retires, or
2) Boston trades Sheed's contract for a player or contract, or
3) Sheed is put on an injured list (but still takes up a roster spot), or
4) Sheed is bought out, or
5) Sheed reports to training camp

I like option #5 myself.

[Chris]

There's some discussion of that going on here:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=40784.msg820814#msg820814

We can always trade Rasheed's contract, just like any other player's.  It's an open question on whether the league would allow us to wait until February, trade him, have him "retire", and then have the league give either us or the acquiring team cap relief.  This seems like a circumvention of the salary cap rules, in my opinion (and, at the very least, it would probably cost us a substantial amount of cash, since we'd presumably be paying Rasheed's contract.  I suppose we could suspend him for not showing up to preserve the fiction, but it's pretty transparent.)

While I agree, it is also circumvention of the salary cap if the C's traded him right now, since Danny and Doc have both said on the record that Sheed plans to retire.  So, if the league will allow it now, I do not think they have much of a case to not allow it after the C's paid Sheed for half the season. 

There is no fiction here.  The truth is out there.  It is just a matter of whether the league office feels the need to draw the line on this, particularly since it is it completely allowable within the rules, and they allow circumvention of the cap in other ways (and have allowed similar situations as this as well) in the past. 

So, personally, I think they absolutely can hold on to him until the deadline (just keep him innactive), and then trade him.