IDEA: New Contract for PP

[davidcruz25]

Give PP a new 2 yr contract to override the remaining yr & make it similiar to KG's...9 mil per yr x2 yrs for $18 mil total. That would mean the 2nd yr is technically only $3 mil, if you consider the 1st yr would have originally been $15. Assuming PP & Celtics agree & the new CBA allows. What do you guys think?

[Vermont Green]

First welcome, I see this is your first post.

Second, assume PP accepts this, then what?

[davidcruz25]

Run-it-again & hope for health with theoretically 6 mil in cap space...use available salary to fill in gaps. I liked the concept of another post: 1 draft, 1 trade & 1 free agent.

[slamtheking]

Run-it-again & hope for health with theoretically 6 mil in cap space...use available salary to fill in gaps. I liked the concept of another post: 1 draft, 1 trade & 1 free agent.

taking 6 mill off PP's contract won't get you any cap space.  They're still over the cap even with that reduction

[Roy H.]

We can't really rip up the old deal and replace it with a new one.  We could waive him, owing him $5 million, and then re-sign him with the MLE (giving him a total of around $16+ million over two years), but I'm not sure that that is in either party's best interest.

[Chris]

I don't think this is possible.  It is not an option with Pierce.  In order for him to not be making $15 million next year, the C's have to cut him.  And if they cut him, they lose Bird rights on him. 

Of course what they could do is cut him, which gives him $5 million, and then sign him for a two year, MLE deal.  That would basically make it 2 years/$15 million.

But why would Pierce do that?  It won't give them any more cap space to make them a contender.  And it would take away their one way of adding another piece...while costing Pierce money.

I feel pretty confident that if Pierce is not making $15 million next year, he will be in a different uniform.

edit: what Roy said.

[eugen]

This a tramendous stupidity made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rather than trading or not PP

[Chris]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years. 

[eugen]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

[Chris]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

You are just repeating yourself, but not explaining your point.

In what way did Pierce's contract hurt the C's, compared to letting him walk? 

[jambr380]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

The term 'max contract' is way overused these days. How is a two year contract [at any amount] a max contract? He is making about market value for a shorter term than KG, Rondo, Green, etc. Whether he was paid 5 mill or 15 mill was irrelevant. We are way over the salary cap anyway.

[eugen]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

You are just repeating yourself, but not explaining your point.

In what way did Pierce's contract hurt the C's, compared to letting him walk?

Why you trying to tell me that you are not understaning my point?! How a GM can pay 15 mill/year for a old player at age of 35??? This ia a max contract for Cs team...Lebron is getting 15.5 year...So, this a very very bad money managment. With 15 mill, you can pay 2 very good players under 30 years old. So if PP is so connected to Cs shirt, let him get less money and try to be happy with less money such normal people living happy with 25,000 /year

[Chris]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

You are just repeating yourself, but not explaining your point.

In what way did Pierce's contract hurt the C's, compared to letting him walk?

Why you trying to tell me that you are not understaning my point?! How a GM can pay 15 mill/year for a old player at age of 35??? This ia a max contract for Cs team...Lebron is getting 15.5 year...So, this a very very bad money managment. With 15 mill, you can pay 2 very good players under 30 years old. So if PP is so connected to Cs shirt, let him get less money and try to be happy with less money such normal people living happy with 25,000 /year

First, Lebron is making $19 million next year, not 15 million. 

Second, you can't pay 2 players with Pierce's money, because the C's wouldn't have had the space under the cap to do it.  The C's have been over the cap, and when you are over the cap, keeping that salary slot active can be very valuable, if the player still retains value (which Pierce does). 

This isn't about a connection to the C's shirt.  Honestly, I don't like Paul Pierce.  I would love to see him gone.  But, this is about how the CBA works.  When you have a guy who is worth his contract (which Pierce is), it is almost always better to have them signed than not, in order to maintain roster flexibility.

[Sketch5]

This a tramendous stupidty made by DA years ago, giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/yeasr. CS need actually a new GM rajter than trading or not PP

Why?  By doing that contract, he saved his owners a ton of luxury tax dollars (remember, Pierce took a decent paycut by opting out of that final year in order to sign the extension), he was able to extend the value of an asset, which otherwise would have been lost completely.

More importantly, Pierce was paid pretty much market value, if not below market value, given his production the last couple of years.

Giving a 35 years old player, max contract of 15mill/year is not only a big money managment mistake but in general, is a bad managment of budget having the bad influence for the future of the team. This is a afact now and there is no reason to hide te truth

You are just repeating yourself, but not explaining your point.

In what way did Pierce's contract hurt the C's, compared to letting him walk?

Why you trying to tell me that you are not understaning my point?! How a GM can pay 15 mill/year for a old player at age of 35??? This ia a max contract for Cs team...Lebron is getting 15.5 year...So, this a very very bad money managment. With 15 mill, you can pay 2 very good players under 30 years old. So if PP is so connected to Cs shirt, let him get less money and try to be happy with less money such normal people living happy with 25,000 /year

The 15 mill this year was a "Thank you" for taking less money the first couple years of it, so they could resign other players. The option comes in so they don't have to pay him all of it if the team goes in the hole. Kinda a safety measure. A lot of contracts are done this way. KG's was 20 mill on his last year, and at the age of 35, that was part of Mini's deal. Isn't Lins last year up around 10 Mill, for a guy who had 2 good months of basketball?

Also cutting PP or redoing his contract wont do anything but save the owners money. You can't sign a different guy out side the MLE. Even if you cut PP you don't get an extra 10 mill to play with.

So the options are, keep PP see where it goes. Cut PP and trade KG, have Rondo and Sully sit half season and tank. Or trade PP for X player or trade for players to us as trade chips in an other trade later on.

[LooseCannon]

Why you trying to tell me that you are not understaning my point?! How a GM can pay 15 mill/year for a old player at age of 35??? This ia a max contract for Cs team...Lebron is getting 15.5 year...So, this a very very bad money managment. With 15 mill, you can pay 2 very good players under 30 years old. So if PP is so connected to Cs shirt, let him get less money and try to be happy with less money such normal people living happy with 25,000 /year

Because paying two very good players a combined 15 million wasn't an option.

Because the Celtics were over the soft cap, they could either pay Pierce or let him walk and replace him with minimum salary players.

The max contract limit means that players like Lebron are underpaid, not that players like Pierce are overpaid.

The dilemma for Ainge is that the Celtics have enough talent that they can be a contender if they hit a homerun in off-season transactions, unlikely but not impossible.  If the guarantee date on Pierce's contract was July 17, this would be easy for Ainge.  If Pierce had declined more, this would be easy for Ainge.