Jackie Mac on WEEI

[rondohondo]

She's on now if you wanna hear.

[rondohondo]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

[Snakehead]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

[Fafnir]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

[rondohondo]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

you still have to pay the whole salary, but it is stretched out over more years at a cheaper salary towards the salary cap. She said if you waived him it would be like 4 mil a year against the cap, not sure over how many years?

[Snakehead]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

hmmm.... is that better?  I'm not sure.  Wallace's contract could have value too in two years time.

[dannyandkg]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

Courtesy of an article by Kurt Helin:

"We kind of refer to this as the Eddy Curry Rule.

In the NBA labor deal is what is called the “stretch provision,” which will help teams get rid of underperforming players on big deals. It can only be used on new contracts but here is how it works: If you want to get rid of a player you can buy him out then stretch out his contract on your books for double the length of the deal plus one year. For example, if a player is owed $20 million over two seasons and he gets waived, the team can stretch him out so his deal so on the official salary cap ledger he only costs them $4 million a season for five seasons."

[Roy H.]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

I hate the idea, personally.  The only thing worse than having bad contracts on your cap is having a significant amount of dead money for a player who isn't on your team anymore.

In 2020, I don't want Gerald Wallace to still be eating up our cap room.

I mean, over the next two years we're probably tanking and won't have cap space anyway.  In that third year, I'm sure Danny (or our new GM ) will try to move that expiring contract.  That's certainly better than having Wallace on our cap an additional four years.

[Fafnir]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

I hate the idea, personally.  The only thing worse than having bad contracts on your cap is having a significant amount of dead money for a player who isn't on your team anymore.

In 2020, I don't want Gerald Wallace to still be eating up our cap room.

I mean, over the next two years we're probably tanking and won't have cap space anyway.  In that third year, I'm sure Danny (or our new GM ) will try to move that expiring contract.  That's certainly better than having Wallace on our cap an additional four years.

I think it doesn't make much sense for this year, but it might make more sense next year or the year after that to stretch the 20 over 5 or 10 over 3 if you have moves that require cap space.

[BleedGreen1989]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

I hate the idea, personally.  The only thing worse than having bad contracts on your cap is having a significant amount of dead money for a player who isn't on your team anymore.

In 2020, I don't want Gerald Wallace to still be eating up our cap room.

I mean, over the next two years we're probably tanking and won't have cap space anyway.  In that third year, I'm sure Danny (or our new GM ) will try to move that expiring contract.  That's certainly better than having Wallace on our cap an additional four years.

Yea I hate the stretch provision in this situation.

[AB_Celtic]

Just bite the bullet on Wallace. The stretch provision is pointless here. Let him go wild with Rondo and maybe we discover he just had an off year.

Regardless, he'll have value in a few years as an expiring.

[jambr380]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

I hate the idea, personally.  The only thing worse than having bad contracts on your cap is having a significant amount of dead money for a player who isn't on your team anymore.

In 2020, I don't want Gerald Wallace to still be eating up our cap room.

I mean, over the next two years we're probably tanking and won't have cap space anyway.  In that third year, I'm sure Danny (or our new GM ) will try to move that expiring contract.  That's certainly better than having Wallace on our cap an additional four years.

I totally agree. The year 2020 went through my head, as well.

There is always a chance that he was just a bad fit in NJ (and he did play better in the playoffs). What if he actually shows he is still a good player and becomes a trade asset? I know there isn't a huge chance of this, but he will have the minutes to prove himself.

If it doesn't work out, then do it next year and save a year off of the stretch...many many people complained about Scalabrine for his 5 year/15 mill contract and he actually ended up being useful to us. Wallace's $4.3 million per year for seven years to not be on the team is just stupid.

[hwangjini_1]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

great sum up of the stretch fafnir. thanks.

but the stretch here seems to make less sense than keeping the contract as is. the stretch puts a $4+ million dollar crimp in the celtics payroll for 7 years. that is a long time and before then the rebuild should (hopefully) have taken place. that is, cap space will be more important to the celtics in 4-5 years than for the next 2-3 years.

as is, the first two years of high salary are not critical since the celtics will not be angling for a big ticket free agent anyway. and in year three, wallace becomes a valuable trade chip.

also, as is, the celtics are paying a large chunk of money to someone who quite frankly sucks, which is partly the point isnt it? a rebuild requires a year or 3 of suckocity and wallace helps deliver on that.

finally, who knows? wallace may find the fountain of youth and play credibly, which means moving his contract may be possible in exchange for...dare i say it?... a draft pick.

in a nutshell, to the celtics it may be the case that the money for wallace over the next 2-3 years is less valuable and less impactful than the money needed to fill out a playoff team in 4-5 years.

[birdwatcher]

But if he doesn't clear waivers, doesn't the team that picks him up have to take on his salary?

[Evantime34]

saying that c's might waive Wallace , and use the stretch provision. Just her guess at this point

I would love more info on what the "stretch provision" means.

You take the number of years left on the contract and double it and add one.

Then you spread the total value of the contract over that many years.

So instead of 30 million over 3 years, it'd be 30 million over 7 years. So a cap hit of 4.285 per year for the next 7 years.

I will not be happy if this happens. We are already under the tax with this deal, and it will hurt our future cap space for longer. I think you just pay him. I think he will have a bounce back year with us and improve his value.