Larry Coon explains Paul Pierce's contract situation

[nickagneta]

But if Pierce gets waived and re-signs with the team after clearing waivers for say a savings of somewhere in the $5-10 million range, that gets the C's below the luxury tax line and allows them to add some salary in deals or with the MLE without going severely in tax land and costing the team 10s of millions of dollars.

The C's don't want to be repeated luxury tax offenders or too high into the luxury tax, it would cripple their fiscal viability.

[Eddie20]

More Coon...

Interestingly, by the letter of the rule a player could be traded to a third team, waived by the third team, and be eligible to re-sign with his original team before the waiting period expires. However, the league likely would disallow such signing per the general prohibition on circumvention (see question number 103) if this was done in order to circumvent the rule.

So I would this interpret this to mean that we could trade Pierce to acquire Josh Smith, for example. He is subsequently waived and re-signs with us for the vet minimum. Obviously we would have to send the teams some value (picks, players, 3M cash to pay for 60% of Pierce's contract, etc.) in order to entice them to make the deal.

[KGs Knee]

More Coon...

Interestingly, by the letter of the rule a player could be traded to a third team, waived by the third team, and be eligible to re-sign with his original team before the waiting period expires. However, the league likely would disallow such signing per the general prohibition on circumvention (see question number 103) if this was done in order to circumvent the rule.

So I would this interpret this to mean that we could trade Pierce to acquire Josh Smith, for example. He is subsequently waived and re-signs with us for the vet minimum. Obviously we would have to send the teams some value (picks, players, 3M cash to pay for 60% of Pierce's contract, etc.) in order to entice them to make the deal.

No, it means if we traded Pierce to Atlanta, they would have to trade him to another team (who would waive him), and then he could re-sign with Boston.

It is also noted that the league has the right to nullify such a move if it feels the move was intended to circumvent the rules of the CBA.  I doubt the league would let it happen, as this was an issue that the league specifically wanted to eliminate.  Unfortunately, they just worded the language too loosely.

[eugen]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

[KGs Knee]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

Why is it a "stupid situation"?

Elaborate please.

[Eddie20]

More Coon...

Interestingly, by the letter of the rule a player could be traded to a third team, waived by the third team, and be eligible to re-sign with his original team before the waiting period expires. However, the league likely would disallow such signing per the general prohibition on circumvention (see question number 103) if this was done in order to circumvent the rule.

So I would this interpret this to mean that we could trade Pierce to acquire Josh Smith, for example. He is subsequently waived and re-signs with us for the vet minimum. Obviously we would have to send the teams some value (picks, players, 3M cash to pay for 60% of Pierce's contract, etc.) in order to entice them to make the deal.

No, it means if we traded Pierce to Atlanta, they would have to trade him to another team (who would waive him), and then he could re-sign with Boston.

Right. I was referring to the rumored Smith to Boston deal at the deadline. The interest was there and supposedly the sticking point was a first rd pick as compensation. Perhaps the Mavs, or another team, could by enticed to be included in a follow up deal. Not a 3 team deal per say, but a secondary one excluding the C's.

Could Stern stop a waived Pierce returning to Boston? Maybe. Will he? Who knows. Would it be good for the league to have a future hall of famer return to the only team he's ever player for? Yes. So by that token, I think all bets are off in what the league would decide. Definitely worth the risk though.

[eugen]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

Why is it a "stupid situation"?

Elaborate please.

Ok. At age of 35, you can not offer a veterean max contract of 15 mill/season.PP maybe will except a trade to keep the same max contract in order to be underestimated(talking about money)Errors are made 4 years before

[Fafnir]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

Why is it a "stupid situation"?

Elaborate please.

Ok. At age of 35, you can not offer a veterean max contract of 15 mill/season.PP maybe will except a trade to keep the same max contract in order to be underestimated(talking about money)Errors are made 4 years before

He didn't offer Pierce anything near a max contract. He also made sure the last year was partially guaranteed giving him a big contract to trade potentially and a way out if injury ravaged Pierce.

DA's made some shaky moves, but Pierce's last contract wasn't one of them.

[Eddie20]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

Why is it a "stupid situation"?

Elaborate please.

Ok. At age of 35, you can not offer a veterean max contract of 15 mill/season.PP maybe will except a trade to keep the same max contract in order to be underestimated(talking about money)Errors are made 4 years before

Pierce doesn't have a no-trade clause, so He doesn't have to accept a trade. I also don't see a "stupid situation" or an "error" by Ainge at all. I would say that Pierce has actually performed up to his contract. Plus,given the news Coon provided I would say things could potentially play out pretty well.

[guava_wrench]

This stupid situation is thanks to DA

Why is it a "stupid situation"?

Elaborate please.

Ok. At age of 35, you can not offer a veterean max contract of 15 mill/season.PP maybe will except a trade to keep the same max contract in order to be underestimated(talking about money)Errors are made 4 years before

A "veteran max contract" is not 15m. Max contract values are based on years of service. Pierce could get over $20m in a max deal.

[Roy H.]

TP to the OP for posting this thread.  For some reason, the idea that Pierce has a "player option" just won't go away.  It's not true now, and it hasn't been true.  What Pierce has is a partially guaranteed contract.

This thread contains a few minor misstatements that I wanted to clear up:

I don't see him clearing waivers someone would sign him, is it like baseball?

If he's waived then a team would need enough cap space to absorb his entire contract I believe.

I can't see a team spending that much cap space for a single year of Pierce.

Actually, no. A team that has cap space only has to pay the guaranteed portion of the deal. Like the Suns did with Scola and the Cats did with Haywood. So the Mavs could basically claim for just 5M.

This is incorrect, as noted above.  To claim Pierce, a team would have to take on his entire contract.  This is similar to a buyout situation, in that the new salary (in this case, the $5 million) only becomes effective after the player clears waivers.

That's for amnestied players I believe, which both Haywood and Scola were. The Celtics can't amnesty Pierce, he's not on the same contract he was during the lockout.

Pierce is eligible to be amnestied, as his contract was signed under the old CBA.

[Roy H.]

One thing I'm confused about:  Doc said something to the media along the lines of "we couldn't re-sign Dooling, because we bought him out".

This is from the Globe:

After the cleansing, Dooling wanted to play again. He wanted to return to the Celtics, but because his contract had been bought out, he was ineligible to play for them. So he agreed to a contract with the Grizzlies and has played in seven regular-season and three playoff games for them as a reserve point guard.

And then there was this tweet:

Doc on Keyon Dooling signing with Memphis; “We wanted to (sign him) but couldn’t because of the buyout. He would have been with us."

Does anybody know what provision of the CBA Doc was referring to?  Or was he just completely wrong, and nobody in the media called him on it?

I assume it's #2.  However, if there is a rule barring it, would it apply to re-signing Pierce, as well?

[nickagneta]

That's for amnestied players I believe, which both Haywood and Scola were. The Celtics can't amnesty Pierce, he's not on the same contract he was during the lockout.

Pierce is eligible to be amnestied, as his contract was signed under the old CBA.

Yeah, I confused him with KG.

[guava_wrench]

That is an interesting idea.  Waiving him and then signing him to an MLE deal (I assume waiving him would involve renouncing our bird rights to him).  We'd wipe $5 mil off the cap in one fell swoop, though we'd also burn the MLE.

That would give us a lot more flexibility to pull off a sign and trade of Jeff Green for a higher paid player though.

S&T Jeff Green? What? He is under contract. Perhaps you are talking about sending him out for a sign & trade player, like Howard or Smith. Who are you thinking of? Without a name, it sounds like nothing more than 'grass is always greener on the other side' thinking or just hoping something wonderful falls into our lap.

[guava_wrench]

One thing I'm confused about:  Doc said something to the media along the lines of "we couldn't re-sign Dooling, because we bought him out".

This is from the Globe:

After the cleansing, Dooling wanted to play again. He wanted to return to the Celtics, but because his contract had been bought out, he was ineligible to play for them. So he agreed to a contract with the Grizzlies and has played in seven regular-season and three playoff games for them as a reserve point guard.

And then there was this tweet:

Doc on Keyon Dooling signing with Memphis; “We wanted to (sign him) but couldn’t because of the buyout. He would have been with us."

Does anybody know what provision of the CBA Doc was referring to?  Or was he just completely wrong, and nobody in the media called him on it?

I assume it's #2.  However, if there is a rule barring it, would it apply to re-signing Pierce, as well?

Pierce has a team option that would end his contract. I suspect that the option makes the case completely different. They would be trying to do what Elton Brand and Carlos Boozer said they would do (and then didn't do).