Giving Paul Pierce a 4 year deal last summer wasn't the best move.

[TradeProposalDude]

If your concerns revolve around the 2012 and 2013 free agent market, there is always the option of re-structuring Pierce's contract to allow more room for years 3 and 4. However, I'm not sure how happy the owners would be about increasing year 2 payroll and having to pay a significantly larger luxury tax.

Some previous posters in this thread have provided ballpark figures that I'd be for if a restructuring were to be done. Because at the end of the day, I think Dwight Howard and Chris Paul are leaving their current franchises once they become free agents. To have one if not both these studs would be delightful.

[Fan from VT]

unfortunately you can't restructure NBA deals. You'd have to do a full release and buyout to void the current contract, and i'm not sure you'd maintain bird rights in that case, in which case a team would be limited by their capspace.

[dark_lord]

from a fan of paul pierce's perspective, i like the signing.  it almost ensures he will retire a celtic. regardless of his ability, cap room/salary, and other things people like to critique over......i like the signing bc he can start and end his career as a celtic, which in this day and age, is a rarity in the nba

i usually root for the name on the front of the jersey as opposed to the back.  but in this case, the two names are synonyms, imo

[LilRip]

i thought Pierce's contract was frontloaded, meaning he makes more in the initial years and makes less later on? something like 16m in year1 and 13m in year 4.

but i generally agree with your point. i would've wanted a fresh start too. blank roster except for a very cheap Rondo contract ^_^

[angryguy77]

I'm not so sure paul would take only two years and a handshake deal. Injuries happen so he probably was set firm  on the deal he has.