Pierce's contract jumps up in value in '12-'13. Why?

[FrDrake]

According to Hoopshype, Pierce's contract runs like this:

'11-'12: $15,333,334
'12-'13: $16,790,345
'13-'14: $15,333,334

My question for the board is why the artificial jump of approx. $1.5 million during the '12-'13 season when that's the year the Cs are planning on having cap space?  

Why not have the jump this year when the Cs are way over the cap (which will be true no matter how the new agreement figures the cap) and maximize cap room next year?  Obviously the CBA limits the amount a contract can rise and fall each year but in this case the Cs look like they structured it deliberately.  Why?

[Roy H.]

According to Hoopshype, Pierce's contract runs like this:

'11-'12: $15,333,334
'12-'13: $16,790,345
'13-'14: $15,333,334

My question for the board is why the artificial jump of approx. $1.5 million during the '12-'13 season when that's the year the Cs are planning on having cap space?  

Why not have the jump this year when the Cs are way over the cap (which will be true no matter how the new agreement figures the cap) and maximize cap room next year?  Obviously the CBA limits the amount a contract can rise and fall each year but in this case the Cs look like they structured it deliberately.  Why?

Well, the salary *did* jump this year, as well.  It went from $13,876,321 in 2010-11 to $15,333,334 in 2011-12. 

As for why, my guess is that the team wanted to minimize salary is the short-term, while they're above the luxury tax.  Every new dollar spent right now costs two dollars in actual payroll, whereas if the team gets below the luxury tax that penalty goes away.

It would have made more sense from a cap space perspective to front-load Pierce's contract, but it would have been quite a bit more pricey.

[diconzo]

I think because that 16 mil year "technically" is the end of his contract. If I remember right, the last year is a player option.