Would the Celtics Waive Pierce in 2013 and then Re-Sign Him for Less?

[LooseCannon]

While the new CBA, thankfully, closed the loophole that allowed players to be traded, waived, and re-signed by their old team, I assume it still permits players to be waived then re-signed by their old team.

End of the bench guys are often waived and re-signed during a season, depending on a team's needs for depth.  One example of a non-minimum guy who was waived and re-signed is James Jones.  To create additional cap space of almost $3m in the summer of 2010, the Miami Heat waived Jones, who had signed a five year, $23.2m contract.  The final three years, beginning with 2010-2011, were partially guaranteed for around $2m each.  A few weeks later, after the Heat had signed LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem, Jones re-signed with the Heat for the minimum salary.

Paul Pierce is scheduled to make $15,333,334 in 2013-2014, of which $4m is guaranteed ($5m if he he reaches certain playing time marks) according to ShamSports.  That year becomes fully guaranteed if Pierce is not waived on or before June 30, 2013.

Can you see a still-capable Paul Pierce agreeing to be waived and then signed for a smaller contract (the minimum, even) to create cap space to sign a free agent (Paul Milsap will be a free agent in 2013 for those who want a classic power forward who plays in the low-post) or trade for a star?

It's an option that allows Pierce to remain a Celtic for life without paying him like an All-Star if he declines to below an All-Star level.  Perhaps the contract was even structured so that this was the plan all along to have this as an option for cap flexibility.

[tyrone biggums]

While the new CBA, thankfully, closed the loophole that allowed players to be traded, waived, and re-signed by their old team, I assume it still permits players to be waived then re-signed by their old team.

End of the bench guys are often waived and re-signed during a season, depending on a team's needs for depth.  One example of a non-minimum guy who was waived and re-signed is James Jones.  To create additional cap space of almost $3m in the summer of 2010, the Miami Heat waived Jones, who had signed a five year, $23.2m contract.  The final three years, beginning with 2010-2011, were partially guaranteed for around $2m each.  A few weeks later, after the Heat had signed LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem, Jones re-signed with the Heat for the minimum salary.

Paul Pierce is scheduled to make $15,333,334 in 2013-2014, of which $4m is guaranteed ($5m if he he reaches certain playing time marks) according to ShamSports.  That year becomes fully guaranteed if Pierce is not waived on or before June 30, 2013.

Can you see a still-capable Paul Pierce agreeing to be waived and then signed for a smaller contract (the minimum, even) to create cap space to sign a free agent (Paul Milsap will be a free agent in 2013 for those who want a classic power forward who plays in the low-post) or trade for a star?

It's an option that allows Pierce to remain a Celtic for life without paying him like an All-Star if he declines to below an All-Star level.  Perhaps the contract was even structured so that this was the plan all along to have this as an option for cap flexibility.

So you would waive Paul Pierce to sign Paul Milsap, an undersized PF to a big deal?   

Paul would probably take less, if it allowed us to grab D-Will and Howard. I don't see him making that concession for Paul Milsap or another middling player.

[LooseCannon]

So you would waive Paul Pierce to sign Paul Milsap, an undersized PF to a big deal?   

I'm just using Paul Milsap as an example of a free agent who some in this forum might desire.  I'd probably take him over Al Jefferson.  Feel free to suggest a different potential free agent.

The basic idea remains that the Celtics don't have to trade or amnesty Paul Pierce to create cap flexibility.  I suspect there are posters here who would not have considered this idea as part of rebuilding/reloading plan and I would like to bring it to their attention.

[Merovech]

While the new CBA, thankfully, closed the loophole that allowed players to be traded, waived, and re-signed by their old team, I assume it still permits players to be waived then re-signed by their old team.

End of the bench guys are often waived and re-signed during a season, depending on a team's needs for depth.  One example of a non-minimum guy who was waived and re-signed is James Jones.  To create additional cap space of almost $3m in the summer of 2010, the Miami Heat waived Jones, who had signed a five year, $23.2m contract.  The final three years, beginning with 2010-2011, were partially guaranteed for around $2m each.  A few weeks later, after the Heat had signed LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem, Jones re-signed with the Heat for the minimum salary.

Paul Pierce is scheduled to make $15,333,334 in 2013-2014, of which $4m is guaranteed ($5m if he he reaches certain playing time marks) according to ShamSports.  That year becomes fully guaranteed if Pierce is not waived on or before June 30, 2013.

Can you see a still-capable Paul Pierce agreeing to be waived and then signed for a smaller contract (the minimum, even) to create cap space to sign a free agent (Paul Milsap will be a free agent in 2013 for those who want a classic power forward who plays in the low-post) or trade for a star?

It's an option that allows Pierce to remain a Celtic for life without paying him like an All-Star if he declines to below an All-Star level.  Perhaps the contract was even structured so that this was the plan all along to have this as an option for cap flexibility.

So you would waive Paul Pierce to sign Paul Milsap, an undersized PF to a big deal?   

Paul would probably take less, if it allowed us to grab D-Will and Howard. I don't see him making that concession for Paul Milsap or another middling player.

Millsap has been incredible this year, and should be a perrenial all-star for a few years to come.

[PosImpos]

I think they made that final year only partially guaranteed because they figured the team would likely be rebuilding at that point, and if Pierce were still with the team, it might be advantageous for both parties if Pierce could be waived (if he wants to retire, pursue a ring with another team, or re-sign to a more cap-friendly deal).

[Chris]

I think they made that final year only partially guaranteed because they figured the team would likely be rebuilding at that point, and if Pierce were still with the team, it might be advantageous for both parties if Pierce could be waived (if he wants to retire, pursue a ring with another team, or re-sign to a more cap-friendly deal).

Exactly.  I think if Pierce is waived, the only chance of him coming back is if its on a 1 day contract to retire a Celtic.  If they waive him, he will either be retiring, or going somewhere else. 

[SHAQATTACK]

Would be hard to watch him playing for another club. 

[OmarSekou]

No. Talent is more important than depth. At the end of the day it's better to have 1 guy who can do 3 things well, than 3 guys who can each do 1 thing very well. Come playoff time, there's only so much room on the court and it's much easier to work around 1 good player than a few mediocre ones.

The Heat don't even have a bad bench. They just need a slightly better starting center . If Joel Julio were coming off the bench they'd have him, Shane, Mike Miller, Haslem, and Cole. That'd be one of the best benches in the league.

[PosImpos]

I think they made that final year only partially guaranteed because they figured the team would likely be rebuilding at that point, and if Pierce were still with the team, it might be advantageous for both parties if Pierce could be waived (if he wants to retire, pursue a ring with another team, or re-sign to a more cap-friendly deal).

Exactly.  I think if Pierce is waived, the only chance of him coming back is if its on a 1 day contract to retire a Celtic.  If they waive him, he will either be retiring, or going somewhere else. 

The good news about Pierce being partially guaranteed is it makes him more attractive trade piece, since any team taking him won't be saddled with his full salary for both years.

[tyrone biggums]

While the new CBA, thankfully, closed the loophole that allowed players to be traded, waived, and re-signed by their old team, I assume it still permits players to be waived then re-signed by their old team.

End of the bench guys are often waived and re-signed during a season, depending on a team's needs for depth.  One example of a non-minimum guy who was waived and re-signed is James Jones.  To create additional cap space of almost $3m in the summer of 2010, the Miami Heat waived Jones, who had signed a five year, $23.2m contract.  The final three years, beginning with 2010-2011, were partially guaranteed for around $2m each.  A few weeks later, after the Heat had signed LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem, Jones re-signed with the Heat for the minimum salary.

Paul Pierce is scheduled to make $15,333,334 in 2013-2014, of which $4m is guaranteed ($5m if he he reaches certain playing time marks) according to ShamSports.  That year becomes fully guaranteed if Pierce is not waived on or before June 30, 2013.

Can you see a still-capable Paul Pierce agreeing to be waived and then signed for a smaller contract (the minimum, even) to create cap space to sign a free agent (Paul Milsap will be a free agent in 2013 for those who want a classic power forward who plays in the low-post) or trade for a star?

It's an option that allows Pierce to remain a Celtic for life without paying him like an All-Star if he declines to below an All-Star level.  Perhaps the contract was even structured so that this was the plan all along to have this as an option for cap flexibility.

So you would waive Paul Pierce to sign Paul Milsap, an undersized PF to a big deal?   

Paul would probably take less, if it allowed us to grab D-Will and Howard. I don't see him making that concession for Paul Milsap or another middling player.

Millsap has been incredible this year, and should be a perrenial all-star for a few years to come.

Thats great, but would you waive Pierce for him? Why would you even need to? Plus you put into the equation that he is undersized and will be a match up nightmare against bigger guys like Bosh...just not worth the money he would be asking for IMO.

[Roy H.]

While the new CBA, thankfully, closed the loophole that allowed players to be traded, waived, and re-signed by their old team, I assume it still permits players to be waived then re-signed by their old team.

End of the bench guys are often waived and re-signed during a season, depending on a team's needs for depth.  One example of a non-minimum guy who was waived and re-signed is James Jones.  To create additional cap space of almost $3m in the summer of 2010, the Miami Heat waived Jones, who had signed a five year, $23.2m contract.  The final three years, beginning with 2010-2011, were partially guaranteed for around $2m each.  A few weeks later, after the Heat had signed LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem, Jones re-signed with the Heat for the minimum salary.

Paul Pierce is scheduled to make $15,333,334 in 2013-2014, of which $4m is guaranteed ($5m if he he reaches certain playing time marks) according to ShamSports.  That year becomes fully guaranteed if Pierce is not waived on or before June 30, 2013.

Can you see a still-capable Paul Pierce agreeing to be waived and then signed for a smaller contract (the minimum, even) to create cap space to sign a free agent (Paul Milsap will be a free agent in 2013 for those who want a classic power forward who plays in the low-post) or trade for a star?

It's an option that allows Pierce to remain a Celtic for life without paying him like an All-Star if he declines to below an All-Star level.  Perhaps the contract was even structured so that this was the plan all along to have this as an option for cap flexibility.

So you would waive Paul Pierce to sign Paul Milsap, an undersized PF to a big deal?   

Paul would probably take less, if it allowed us to grab D-Will and Howard. I don't see him making that concession for Paul Milsap or another middling player.

Millsap has been incredible this year, and should be a perrenial all-star for a few years to come.

Thats great, but would you waive Pierce for him? Why would you even need to? Plus you put into the equation that he is undersized and will be a match up nightmare against bigger guys like Bosh...just not worth the money he would be asking for IMO.

I think the idea would be to waive him only if it meant bringing Pierce back on a reduced deal.

Pierce will get around $15.3 million if he's not waived.  If he is waived, and comes back on a minimum deal, he'll make around $6.5 million (and will count a little less than that against our cap). 

So, we could potentially free up $9 million in cap room, if Pierce was on board.  The question is, would he be?

The only way I see Pierce giving away $9 million voluntarily is if it could be used to put us over the top.  Of course, the team could just cut him anyway and take the decision out of his hands, at which point Pierce would be more likely to sign with another team, I expect, rather than take the minimum.

[stylo617617]

i wasnt sure if we can amnesty guys then resign those same players

[LooseCannon]

i wasnt sure if we can amnesty guys then resign those same players

If you amnesty someone, then you can't re-sign them.  If you simply waive someone, then you can.  Under the amnesty clause, you still have to pay their entire salary, but it doesn't count against the cap.  If you use normal waivers, the Celtics would only have to pay the guaranteed part of Pierce's contract and the $5 million would still count against the cap.  You could free up to $10.3 million in cap space to use to sign a free agent or make a trade, then sign Pierce with the veteran's minimum exception.

Some people fixated on Millsap, who I used as an example, but it doesn't have to be him.  It could be Chris Paul, Monta Ellis, or Al Jefferson (who I don't like as much as Millsap), all guys who at least one person out there would like to see as a Celtic.

[soap07]

Paul would probably take less, if it allowed us to grab D-Will and Howard. I don't see him making that concession for Paul Milsap or another middling player.

To refer to Milsap as middling is ridiculous. He has a 23.2 PER for for ****.

[diconzo]

Pierce's deal for 2013-14 season is a player option anyway. So if we wanted him for less and he was willing he would just decline his option and sign for less. No need to waive.