Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    The rumors are that they will try to find a team at the draft who will trade for Paul, giving us a draft pick and a bad contract in return, then waive Paul to try and save money?

    What team or teams could be interested in doing this? The Cavs can't take Pierce until after July 1st, so all this talk of pick 19 is impossible.

    I see the Celtics picking up his 15.3m option regardless. They need to get something for their captain. He is a top 7 Celtic of all time. Waiving him to save 10m and get nothing would be a disgrace. A team like Golden State, with Biedrins and Rich Jefferson's expiring deals, would be a good trade partner for the C's, AFTER they pick up Pierce's option.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from scubber. Show scubber's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    The Suns would easily give up the awful contracts of Channing Frye and Michael Beasley for Pierce, but what would we get in return? Pick #5 is too high. Maybe a swap of 5 for 16? Perhaps pick #30 and a protected lotto pick next year?

    But can we afford to watch Frye pick up his 6.8m option for '14-15 when we hope to have lots of cap space? Beasley at least is only guaranteed through next season. The C's could only really afford to take Frye's deal if they dumped Courtney Lee as well.

    Frye, Beasley, Shannon Brown, young PG Kendall Marshall, pick #30 and a future 1st to Boston. Pierce and Lee to the Suns. The Suns buyout Pierce, so next year they pay 10m instead of 18.5. The following year the C's pay 6.8 for Frye instead of 5.4 for Lee, but then they are done and don't have to pay the last 5.75 of Lee's deal in 2016. The Suns save significantly more $ at first, the c's just get out of the last year of Lee's deal with a minimal cap hit in 2015, extra picks and a young PG.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to scubber's comment:

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.




    The deadline to waive Pierce is June 30th. So I mean that whatever team trades for him around the time of the draft, can give us 14-20 million in contracts they don't want THEN waive Pierce by the 30th and only pay a 5m buyout. Meaning they save between 9-15 million depending on how much they gave us in contracts.

    I was mentioning above a team like Phoenix, notoriously cheap who has some bad contracts. The Bulls are another, although taking back Boozer or Deng really doesn't help our rebuilding process. 

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?


    Another team that would want Pierce would be the Nets

    They could trade Humphries, Brooks and pick 23 to the Celtics for him. They'd have to throw in the 400k contract of one of their deep bench guys to make the $ work. Is pick 23 and Brooks worth it? Maybe Humphries expiring contract can get something of value later this summer of at the deadline.

    The deal could be expanded to be Pierce, Bass and Lee for Gerald Wallace, Humphries and Brooks. Rather pay Wallace 10m in '15 than Bass/Lee 12. But then again I would rather pay Lee 5.75 in 2016 than Wallace 10 million. So that is prob out.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sinus007. Show sinus007's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to scubber's comment:

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.



    Scubber,

    The deadline is June 30. By that time Celtics have to pick up the last year of the contract or amnesty him. If they don't he becomes a FA they have to pay him $5+M. Sorry, I don't know the details.

    I think they're going to waive him.

     

    AK

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to sinus007's comment:

    In response to scubber's comment:

     

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.

     



    Scubber,

     

    The deadline is June 30. By that time Celtics have to pick up the last year of the contract or amnesty him. If they don't he becomes a FA they have to pay him $5+M. Sorry, I don't know the details.

    I think they're going to waive him.

     

    AK




    Sinus, I already answered Scubber's question a few posts up.

    Do you have a reason why the team would waive one of their top players ever when he still has value? His 15.3m contract would only be for one year. Other than money, which would be pretty insulting.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    We have four options:

    1) Trade him now for matching salaries or to a team under the cap for a draft pick and a TPE

    There are no teams now with cap space to absord Pierce's contract.

    The matching salaries thing obviously makes sense, but the C's would be foolish to take contracts past next seasons, definitely not past 2015. A team with expiring deals who wants to save 7-12 million by waiving Pierce AND giving us a decent asset/pick in return is all that can happen before June 30th.

    2) Waive him and pay the $5MM guaranteed salary for 2013-14' thereby losing Bird Rts and only being able to offer him an exception to resign and thus risk his signing as a FA with another team

    If they waive him and Doc/KG are gone he is 99.99% going to another team (like the Clippers, haha). This option, and getting NOTHING for a franchise icon, is a horrible one IMO.

    3) Buyout his deal for $5MM plus extra consideration (to maintain his Bird Rts) and resign him for something more appealing than $15MM (Understanding that we have just done a buyout for $5MM+) ... So, say the buyout is for $7MM then we give him another $3MM for 1 yr with a team option for the next @ $5MM. That makes him very tradeable before the 2014 deadline for a young prospect.

    I don't think this is possible or an option but I'd be interested in seeing if you have a link or some info that explains about 'extra consideration' and being able to keep his bird rights, nothing i have seen has ever mentioned anything like this.

    4) Let his contract go into force for $15MM and see if he and the team are content being together and if not trade him during the year (by the trade deadline) to a contender for acceptable consideration.

    This makes the most sense to me, there will be someone who will give something of value for him, that is the point of the thread. This summer though will be better than the deadline.




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sinus007. Show sinus007's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    In response to sinus007's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to scubber's comment:

     

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.

     



    Scubber,

     

    The deadline is June 30. By that time Celtics have to pick up the last year of the contract or amnesty him. If they don't he becomes a FA they have to pay him $5+M. Sorry, I don't know the details.

    I think they're going to waive him.

     

    AK

     




    Sinus, I already answered Scubber's question a few posts up.

     

    Do you have a reason why the team would waive one of their top players ever when he still has value? His 15.3m contract would only be for one year. Other than money, which would be pretty insulting.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rameakap,

    I must've missed youre ply re: deadline.

    As for waiving PP, it's the better option from $$$ standpoint. Also, it could be that PP is a quiet (secret) part of Doc-KG deal (just my gut feeling).

     

    AK

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to sinus007's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

     

    In response to sinus007's comment:

     

     

    In response to scubber's comment:

     

    In your first paragraph, you mean "or" instead of "then"?


    Is there a deadline or date that they have to waive Paul?  If not, then there is not any problem here.  They will try to trade and if no one wants him, then they can waive him later on.

     



    Scubber,

     

    The deadline is June 30. By that time Celtics have to pick up the last year of the contract or amnesty him. If they don't he becomes a FA they have to pay him $5+M. Sorry, I don't know the details.

    I think they're going to waive him.

     

    AK

     

     




    Sinus, I already answered Scubber's question a few posts up.

     

     

    Do you have a reason why the team would waive one of their top players ever when he still has value? His 15.3m contract would only be for one year. Other than money, which would be pretty insulting.



    Rameakap,

     

    I must've missed youre ply re: deadline.

    As for waiving PP, it's the better option from $$$ standpoint. Also, it could be that PP is a quiet (secret) part of Doc-KG deal (just my gut feeling).

     

    AK



    If he is a secret part of the trade, then Jordan and 2 picks is nowhere near enough value for KG, Doc and PP.

    If Wyc can obviously get something for Pierce, but it means he'd have to take on other contracts, even if just for next season, and instead chooses to simply waive an iconic player to save $, that will be pathetic.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from chris33. Show chris33's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    Doesn't natter...they're not making the playoffs regardless of who is on the team...get a draft pick from Cleveland next year for PP this year...the draft is better next year anyways....like I said, they are done...get to rebuilding....even the C's management knows this by the moves they're trying to make....the war is over...we lost...surrender



    Actually we are going to win.

    Next year is the deepest draft in years.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    Doesn't natter...they're not making the playoffs regardless of who is on the team...get a draft pick from Cleveland next year for PP this year...the draft is better next year anyways....like I said, they are done...get to rebuilding....even the C's management knows this by the moves they're trying to make....the war is over...we lost...surrender



    The Celtics have to pick up Pierce's 15.3m option to trade him to Cleveland. This is the deal I would want:

    Pierce (15.3) and Lee (5.2) to Cleveland.

    Alonzo Gee (1 yr 3.25m), a top 3 protected '14 1st rd pick and (if he picks up his player option) Marreese Speights to Boston.

    The Cavs will have the cap space to absord those 20 million in contracts and with Pierce on the team and the Celts/Hawks likely dropping out of the playoffs the Cavs draft pick should be in the 12-18 range. Even with Lee the Cavs would have more than enough cap space next summer to offer max deals to multiple players. All their other contracts are team options.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    3) Buyout his deal for $5MM plus extra consideration (to maintain his Bird Rts) and resign him for something more appealing than $15MM (Understanding that we have just done a buyout for $5MM+) ... So, say the buyout is for $7MM then we give him another $3MM for 1 yr with a team option for the next @ $5MM. That makes him very tradeable before the 2014 deadline for a young prospect.

    I don't think this is possible or an option but I'd be interested in seeing if you have a link or some info that explains about 'extra consideration' and being able to keep his bird rights, nothing i have seen has ever mentioned anything like this.

     

    http://celticshub.com/2013/05/10/paul-pierces-contract-dispelling-the-myths-and-stating-the-facts/

    FICTION: The Celtics would be unable to sign Pierce for a team friendly contract this season after waiving him due to CBA rules.
    This is where contract language is very important. If the C’s dump Pierce by June 30th, they would NOT be buying him out, only waiving him. By waiving him, this puts no limitations on their ability to sign him for next season.

    If they bought him out, new CBA rules limit teams from resigning players (Edit: only players that are traded by a team) for a full year from the date they are bought out. That is not the case here with Pierce.

    Can't find any thing about extra consideration in the buyout other than when being waived and written off using the Stretch Provision. So by adding extra compensation to the $5MM they may have to waive him after that. But if they just pay him the $5MM guaranteed and don't waive him it looks like they maintain his Bird Rts as indicated above and can resign him to a new team friendly deal since he hasn't been traded (the 1 yr moratorium doesn't apply in this case).

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems complex, I only see there being a point in bringing PP back if Doc and KG are here and they are adding parts to try and contend.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    Wouldn't it be interesting if Pierce is thinking the absolute opposite of what you'd expect and is not interested in going to LA to follow Doc and KG.

     

    What if he wants a new system, a new team. Wouldn't be surprised to see Paul Pierce a Spur next year. Paul would fit right in. They have cap space so they can offer him a competitive amount. Not necessarily to replace Kawhi - who is a star - but to come off the bench, maybe like Ginoble. Maybe Pierce and Ginoble come off the bench together. Paul would thrive.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    What if it just the trade is off period.  Doc is stuck and has to leave the Celtics or stay.  And with all this subterfuge with Doc involved KG has to decide if he should retire or come back to the Celtics.

     

    KG and Pierce might just decide they want to play one more year and Doc will be so embarrassed he leaves to do TV.  Doc screwed this thing up and there is now way his actions have not screwed him up things royally. We will see.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to concord27's comment:

    What if it just the trade is off period.  Doc is stuck and has to leave the Celtics or stay.  And with all this subterfuge with Doc involved KG has to decide if he should retire or come back to the Celtics.

     

    KG and Pierce might just decide they want to play one more year and Doc will be so embarrassed he leaves to do TV.  Doc screwed this thing up and there is now way his actions have not screwed him up things royally. We will see.

    All things considered, I'd settle for KG and CPP coming back and doc leaving FOREVER. That might be an interesting transition year and final goodbyes for the 2 HOFers.

    Under no circumstances does doc come back to the Cs.

    Pud

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Will Celtics really waive Pierce?

    In response to R9R's comment:

    Wouldn't it be interesting if Pierce is thinking the absolute opposite of what you'd expect and is not interested in going to LA to follow Doc and KG.

     

    What if he wants a new system, a new team. Wouldn't be surprised to see Paul Pierce a Spur next year. Paul would fit right in. They have cap space so they can offer him a competitive amount. Not necessarily to replace Kawhi - who is a star - but to come off the bench, maybe like Ginoble. Maybe Pierce and Ginoble come off the bench together. Paul would thrive.



    The Spurs could offer him 7-9 million to replace the retiring Ginobli as a 6th man.

    But while you are right we don't know what is going on in Paul'd head we do know:

    A. He is from LA

    B. He loves Doc and KG

    So he wouldn't be thinking the exact opposite, he'd just need to be wined, dined and paid twice as much to turn down what looks like an obvious fit in LA. Either way, it would happen without his 15.3m being picked up and the C's get nothing, so I'd be against that.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share