Give me your offseason plan...get creative but keep it realistic

[LooseCannon]

1. Release Paul Pierce and then immediately re-sign him at $5 million for one year with a no trade clause. That nets Pierce $10 million for this year. This is huge because it will allow for the C's to add some salary and should allow them to be able to use the MLE.

You would have to use the MLE to sign Pierce to a contract that big.

I don't think so, I think we might still own his Bird rights even if we terminate the contract.

Its not like we are renouncing his rights, just terminating the current contract which the team has a right to do.

You don't have Bird rights on a player who doesn't complete his last contract.  (That is, on a player who passes through waivers.)  You do have Bird rights to a player who is signed and waived in each of his first two seasons with the team then signs and finishes out his contract for a third season.

If the Celtics were declining to exercise a team option, then they could use Bird rights.  If the Celtics are waiving Paul Pierce, then they don't have any Bird rights, but would have them at the end of a new contract that Pierce might sign.  Theoretically, they could sign him on a one-year minimum deal then sign him for the maximum on his next contract, but an agreement to do so would be such an obvious circumvention of the salary cap that you'd probably get the same penalty that Minnesota received for the Joe Smith deal.

I just the Coon FQA page on the CBA and even that page is a bit ambiguous on this particular topic. It states in one section the non-guananteed contracts basically work as team options and in another it says that every player released has to go through waivers and discusses what to do with the remaining money.

I even read a Q&A with Coon where he seemed a bit confused on this particular issue.

You are probably right but I am not 100% sure you are and not being a lawyer, I am not going to read the actual CBA to find out.

I assume you are referring to the footnote to FAQ #62, which says that "a non-guaranteed season can be similar in function to a team option".  Similar, but not identical.

In a recent chat, Coon said:

There is no player option, so the Celtics would have to waive him. But if they did so, they COULD mutually decide to re-sign.

If Coon seemed confused in a previous chat, I suspect it was because he was unsure about the details of Pierce's contract so didn't know which CBA provisions apply.