With Dwight Howard on the mind of a lot of Celtics fans, it's time for the return of the Salary Cap FAQ, in abbreviated form. Today, we'll be focusing primarily on next off-season, to estimate how much we'll have to spend in free agency.
1. How much do we currently have on the books in committed salaries?
| Player | 2011-2012 | 2012-13 | 2013-2014 | 2014-2015 | 2015-2016 |
| Kevin Garnett | $21,247,044 | n/a | n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
| Paul Pierce | $15,333,334 | $16,790,345 | $15,333,334 |
n/a | n/a |
| Rajon Rondo |
$10,045,455 | $11,000,000 | $11,954,545 | $12,909,091 | n/a |
| Ray Allen |
$10,000,000 | n/a |
n/a |
n/a | n/a |
| Jermaine O'Neal |
$6,226,200 | n/a |
n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Brandon Bass |
$4,250,000 | $4,250,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Chris Wilcox |
$3,000,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Keyon Dooling |
$2,246,400 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Avery Bradley |
$1,524,480 | $1,630,800 | $2,511,432 | $3,581,302 | n/a |
| JuJuan Johnson |
$1,042,320 | $1,089,240 | $1,136,160 | $2,049,633 | $3,039,605 |
| Sasha Pavlovic |
$854,389 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Mickael Pietrus | $854,389 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Marquis Daniels | $854,389 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Greg Stiemsma | $762,195 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| (Rasheed Wallace) | $491,109 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| E'Twaun Moore | $473,604 | $762,195 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Jeff Green |
Bird Rights |
||||
| Nenad Krstic |
Bird Rights | ||||
| Totals with options: | $79,205,308 | $35,522,580 | $30,935,471 | $14,958,723 | $3,039,605 |
| Totals without options: | $78,518,113 | $30,510,385 |
$15,954,545 | $12,909,091 | $0 |
Team options are in red and qualifying offers are in green. Salaries shown in orange represent non-guaranteed / partially guaranteed deals, while trade kickers and other owed salary obligations are in purple. Player options are listed in blue. Listed salaries are estimates only, and often fluctuate based upon whether players reach bonuses, etc.
2. What is the salary cap for this year? For next year? What about the luxury tax? What is the difference between these two numbers?
The cap for this year is $58,044,000, and for next year it's projected to be approximately $61 million. This year's luxury tax is $70,307,000, and it's projected to rise to around $74 million next year. I'll touch on the specifics related to the salary cap and luxury tax below, but if you have questions, please let me know in the comments section.
(More after the jump...)
3. How much cap room do we have next year? With a $61 million cap and only $30 million committed, does that mean we can spend $31 million?
Like with everything else related to the CBA, the answer is somewhat complicated.
First, to get cap room in the first place, we have to "renounce" each of our free agents. Essentially, until we do so, a "cap hold" is placed on our salary cap, representing somewhere between 105% and 250% of the player's previous salary. Jeff Green's cap hold, for instance, is $11,139,970, representing 250% of his last year's salary. Cap holds eat into available salary cap space until such time as a free agent is renounced.
Next comes our draft picks. We're in all likelihood going to have both our own and the Clippers' #1 pick next year. Each of these picks carries a cap hold, as well. As of right now, those picks would be 16th and 21st in the draft. For our purposes today, though, let's assume that the Celts improve a bit, and that those picks end up as 20th and 22nd. These two picks combined would have a cap hold of approximately $2.3 million.
Last comes empty roster spots. The salary cap presumes that teams have at least 12 players on its roster. For every player (or cap hold) below 12, the team is "charged" an amount equal to the rookie minimum salary, which will be right around $500,000 next year. Assuming that Bass opts out of his contract and that we renounce all of our free agents, we'd have Pierce, Rondo, Bradley, and Johnson under contract, plus two first rounders. That means we'd have six contracts, and six roster charges. These roster charges are at approximately $500k each, meaning another $3 million in salary.
So what does this all mean? In essence, we have to add approximately $5.3 million to our committed salary for next year to accurately reflect our cap situation. That brings our commitments to $35,810,385, leaving approximately $25 million in cap space.
4. With $25 million, can we sign Dwight Howard? Deron Williams? Both?
The most we can offer either Howard or Deron in the first year of a new contract is 30% of the cap, or around $18.3 million. Each could earn slightly more in their first year via a sign-and-trade, but it's pretty safe to say that both will earn between $18 million and $20 million on a max deal.
Therefore, it's possible that we could sign one, but it's unlikely we could get both. The only way that is realistically possible is if we included Rondo in a sign-and-trade to either Orlando or New Jersey.
5. Okay, so we sign Howard, and have $5 million in cap room. Now what?
We would be able to fill out our roster with that $5 million. In addition, we'd be able to sign a free agent with a "room exception" of $2.5 million per year, for up to two years. Also, we could sign players to minimum salary contracts.
6. Once we've spent up to the cap, can we sign our own free agents with Bird Rights?
No. Once a free agent is renounced, Bird Rights are permanently extinguished. At that point, you can only sign free agents with cap room, or to minimum contracts. That means that if we signed Dwight Howard, it's likely that we wouldn't have the money to afford either Jeff Green or Brandon Bass.
7. What about the MLE? The bi-annual exception?
Teams with cap room have to renounce the MLE / LLE just like they would a free agent. We wouldn't be able to use either of these exceptions next year.
8. What about Paul Pierce? Can he renegotiate his contract? Could we waive him? If so, how much additional money would we have?
Pierce is under a guaranteed contract of $16,790,345 next year. Contrary to media reports, there is no right to re-negotiate this salary downward.
However, we could waive Pierce subject to the "amnesty" provision. Under that scenario, Pierce would be cut from the team, and he wouldn't count against either our salary cap or our luxury tax. We would still have to pay the majority of his salary, minus whatever any other team was paying him. Pierce would then be posted through a bid process, where teams with cap room would bid on picking up a portion of his salary (and thus his rights). Pierce would not be eligible to re-sign with the Celtics until his original contract would have expired (in 2014).
If Pierce was amnestied, we'd have the benefit of another $16,290,345 in cap room (his salary, minus one additional cap charge). That would give us in excess of $41 million in cap space, which would be enough to sign two max free agents, or one max free agent and a couple of mid-level types.
9. How much of Pierce's deal is guaranteed in 2013-14?
Pierce is guaranteed a minimum of $4 million, and a minimum of $5 million if he plays in at least 50% of our games this year. I believe the deal becomes fully guaranteed on July 1, 2013.
10. What other teams could offer as much or more money than us?
New Jersey could potentially sign Howard to pair with Deron. Similarly, rumors are that Dallas' "Plan A" is to clear enough room for both players. Other teams with $38 million or less in committed salary next year include Cleveland, Houston, Indiana, Phoenix and Washington. Some of those teams will want to re-sign their own free agents, however, while other teams may be able to create significant cap room via trades or the amnesty process.
11. Wait, what? We're still paying Rasheed Wallace?
Yep. As part of his retirement we bought out his contract. That resulted in us having a $491k hit against our salary cap and luxury tax the past two seasons. And no, this contract can not be traded.
12. What if I have additional questions?
Ask them in the comments section below, or look for an update of this FAQ before the start of free agency next season.
2 recs | 116 comments
Question about the LAC Pick we got.
Is it not top-10 protected through 2015?
JoshZavadil - January 27, 2012
It is indeed top-10 protected through 2015...
… although that shouldn’t matter this year. I’d be very surprised if they were among the bottom 10 teams in the league.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Renogiating an Existing Contract
I believe you are wrong about that. Check the link http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7329408/new-items-added-nba-collective-bargaining-agreement
I don’t know the mechanics, but it states it can’t be reduced more than 40%. That would mean to me that we could extend PP contract from 2 to 4 years at an annual salary of 8M per year.
badax33 - January 27, 2012
Larry Coon clarified this recently in a chat:
http://www.hoopsworld.com/salary-cap-chat-with-larry-coon-11812
So, no renegotiating.of existing contracts.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Excellent excellent job Roy
and thanks
Fan from VT - January 27, 2012
always, always a welcome post
very informative as usual, thanks again Roy
Jeff Clark - January 27, 2012
I second that....
a lot of hard work and research to get something like this right, or even almost right.
Nice job, Roy.
Tom Halzack - January 27, 2012
So what exactly can we do
with the luxury tax
GreenSlime - January 27, 2012
This season, nothing. We're tapped out.
Next year, it’s unlikely that we’re a taxpaying team, but if we are, it limits the amount that we can offer on an MLE contract to $3 years @ $3 million per year (plus small annual raises).
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Plus, there are other restrictions in terms of how much we can take back in trade, etc.
We can take on 125% + $100k of the salary we send out, whereas non-tax teams have more flexibility (150% + $100k, or 100% + $5m, whichever is less).
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
What about cap holds
on Garnett and Allen. I mean, if the C’s want to keep them around, they have to sign them to new, lower deals to eliminate their cap holds BEFORE the Celtics cam pursue a free agent, right? Renouncing them outright would mean all that KG and Allen can be offered is the vet minimum, which may not be enough to keep them around….
Section301 - January 27, 2012
That's not quite true...
Even after renouncing a free agent, you can still sign them with your remaining cap room. You just can’t use Bird Rights to go over the cap.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Got it. Thanks
But that’s still a pretty slim number, if a FA eats up 20 of the 25 million available under the cap.
Section301 - January 27, 2012
so we have to have 12 players
1. pierce 16.7
2. rondo 11
3. bradley 1.6
4 johnson 1
5 moore 0.7
6 allen 4 (estimate)
7 garnett 4 (estimate)
8 clippers pick 1
9 our pick 1
10 second round pick .5
11 MAX contract 18 million
12 MLE
I think thats how next years roster will be shaped
JuJuan some moore - January 27, 2012
there would be no MLE to offer
under the scenario described above
Section301 - January 27, 2012
No MLE. Rather, it would be a "room exception"...
Otherwise, it’s doable.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
so could the MLE be used on ray allen
and use the rest as cap room to sign another free agent?
JuJuan some moore - January 27, 2012
I haven't seen anything on whether renounced players can be signed with the "room exception"...
If I see anything on that, I’ll let you know.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
They should be signable
If you renounce a player, you can still sign him with cap space.
LooseCannon - January 27, 2012
That's my guess, as well...
But it hasn’t been explicitly mentioned anywhere. But yes, I would assume that you can sign renounced guys to the room exception just like you can using the minimum salary exception.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Thanks for doing all this Roy
If Pierce was traded for Josh Smith, who makes about $3 million less per year (Pierce, Bass and Dooling for Smith and Hinrich – something like that), and Green was re-signed for less than his cap hold ($8 or $9 million), there’d still be enough money for Howard right? Could even maybe bring Ray back for $6 or $7 mil. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Shiny Porpoise - January 27, 2012
This is what the Celtics team would look like if we signed Dwight Howard...LONG READ, but please read carefully :)...
Bass is obviously going to opt-out. The thin free agent market in 2012, his age, and his production make it a perfect time for Bass to get a long-term deal. He’s worth at least $6 million a year, but will probably get $7-8 million a year someone else.
That leaves $35,810,385 on the books after we renounce Green’s rights, leaving approximately $25 million in cap space. Celtics use $18-20 million to sign Dwight.
Whatever is remaining goes to Jeff Green:
-$5-7 million ONE-YEAR deal to prove himself for his next contract…
…OR…
-$5-7 million LONG-TERM deal to lock himself as a Celtic.
Even though the first option is the much more likely, in regards to cap space, it doesn’t matter. This is what the Celtics roster would look like at this point:
Rondo, Bradley, Moore, Pierce, Green, JJJ, Dwight, and our three draft picks. This leaves the rest of our roster to veteran’ minimum contracts.
Celtics will try their best to sign whoever they can out of Ray, KG, Pietrus, Marquis, and Stiemsma (for minimum deals).
Ray and KG may be worth anywhere from $4-8 million to other teams. I don’t see them leaving the system and family life they are ingrained in for a few million out of the $180-270 million they’ve made. They love playing with the Celtics and have repeatedly said they want to retire here.
Ray and KG understand if they sign with the Celtics for more than the veteran’s minimum, it hurts the Celtics rebuilding, as it eliminates the possibility of signing Jeff Green who is an important asset to keep.
Marquis isn’t worth much more than the veteran’s minimum due to his production, age, and health history. He’s a team and fan favorite who also loves playing for Doc. I see him staying for the vet’s minimum.
Pietrus and Stiemsma are different stories. Both will probably field offers higher than the veteran’s minimum. Regardless, the deal will stand from the Celtics. Here’s to hoping they can resign with the Cs.
Here’s to hoping our roster miraculously looks like this:
Rondo/Avery
Ray/Pietrus/E’twaun
Pierce/Green
KG/JJJ
Dwight/Stiemsma
Plus our three draft picks. That’s fourteen people, leaving the Celtics one slot to find another big man.
GO CELTICS!!!!
Push - January 27, 2012
That's a pretty reasonable plan.
All hinges on what Dwight does, of course. If he joins the band, I gotta think Ray and KG would want one more tour.
If he doesn’t then I’m not sure that KG will choose to stay over retirement.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
i don't buy it
Or rather, I don’t believe Ray and KG are buying it. A vet minimum contract is not in the cards for those guys; they will be worth 4x that much next year.
sofutomygaha - January 27, 2012
You know I am changing my position on DH
Before I thought there was no way in hell he would come to Boston, but after looking at Hobb’s explanation. NJ, Dallas and Boston seem like the top 3 if he goes into FA. Maybe playing with Rondo instead of Deron WIlliams can get DH to sign with the Cs.
SoxAcumen - January 27, 2012
We'd be able to afford Howard + Smith + Green in that scenario, potentially...
… but couldn’t give Ray $6 or $7 million, if I’m doing the math right.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
That's for Shiny Porpoise's question
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
D12+J Smith+Green+Allen+Rondo?
3 players there who are 50% or so at freethrow line.
kheldar52077 - January 27, 2012
Does this combination also include PP?
ramana - January 27, 2012
nope, PP was traded for josh smith
kheldar52077 - January 27, 2012
could be wrong here
but im pretty sure i read somewhere that the new CBA lowers max contractsso that they start at $14m pers season which is why kevin love, etc…were in such a hurry to get their extensions done now. ???
craziness@analltimehigh - January 27, 2012
Max deals for most players are 30% of the salary cap...
So, $18.3 million if there’s a $61 million. Players with 6 years or less of experience can get 25% of the cap, or 30% if they meet certain criteria (winning an MVP, two or more All-NBA appearances or two as an all-star starter, etc.)
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
again could be wrong here
just looked myself…and what i found is just slightly different. ""Max Salary: A player finishing his rookie scale contract will be eligible to receive a maximum salary equal to 30% of the Cap (up from 25%) if he signs with his prior team and is either: 1st, 2nd or 3rd team All-NBA 2 times; an All-Star starter 2 times; or 1-time MVP."
a few games ago, Wyc said, while also doing play calling, the team has the cap space to sign TWO max FA’s next season. if max salaries of FA’s changing teams does startat $14m like i said this makes sense.
craziness@analltimehigh - January 27, 2012
Yes, you're incorrect.
Max salaries are based upon service time. See here:
https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q11
The change from the old CBA was that guys coming off rookie deals are sometimes entitled to 30% (rather than 25%) if they meet the criteria that you and I have both cited.
Even in your example, Deron and Dwight have both been All-NBA multiple times, so they would be entitled to the 30%. However, they don’t need to meet that criteria, as they have more than six years of service time.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
That's the max contract for a restricted free agent
Which is why Kevin Love, et al, signed now. Unrestricted free agents can sign larger contracts, which is why Kevin Love has an opt out after three years.
egotistical ma - January 27, 2012
Great work, Hobbs
You’ve explained this better than anyone else has by a long shot.
If Dwight were to sign with Brooklyn with Deron, what would our best course of action be?
KY Celts fan - January 27, 2012
We'd have a few options...
My preferred course would be to sign Green, Bass, KG, and Ray to one year deals, and try again next year. There’s no need to blow the cap space on mediocre players, unless some team will give us a draft pick to absorb a year or so of salary.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
I agree.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
It sounds like Javale (Sp) McGhee is unhappy with the Wizards
If he was available, in some ways I’d rather have him then Howard. He works harder, is taller, can jump as high , is a great shot blocker and would cost a whole lot less.
Dipper - January 28, 2012
Thanks for this Roy
Excellent writeup
vgarcia890 - January 27, 2012
Spectacular work as always!
I like Eric Gordon a lot. Any chance we could get him for less than the Max if D-Ho doesn’t sign here?
Celtico - January 27, 2012
Gordon turned down a 50mil/4yr extension
and i am not convinced he would be worth more than that
Karasu - January 27, 2012
Very interesting
Glad to have someone fluent on this. Man, its a mess like the US tax code. Every little correction buckled onto the simple idea of a salary cap until the whole thing becomes obtuse.
I am not crazy about Dwight Howard. He’s very, very good. But the amount of money needed to sign him can be spent otherwise to maybe have 2 or 3 lesser talents/bigger winners. It is a team game, after all. If we can’t just reset and fly over the cap like we are now where $20 mil to KG is most of our over-the-cap, then I would not invest in max contract guys.
Wildblu1 - January 27, 2012
It may be a team game, but the truly elite players (top eight or so) win championships.
Rondo at his best may very well be a top ten player, but in all honestly when was the last time you consistently saw him at his best? The Rondo that usually shows up is still very, very, very good and absolutely vital to this team’s sustained success but he isn’t by any means a top ten player.
Dwight on the other hand is the best defensive player this league has seen in awhile—when was the last time you could take a player put him on any team and they instantly become a top ten defensive team—and has become more and more effective and decisive on the offensive end. The post moves are getting better every year and he’s made a tremendous stride last year passing out of the double team (he’s more decisive and understands how to get that hockey assist a lot like Dirk does).
Dwight’s without a question worth the money, but the chances of the C’s getting him is pretty slim even if he is “open” to playing for them.
muckduck - January 27, 2012
he is also virtually injury free.
i hope he comes to boston but i read somewhere that adidas wants him in the west and offered him 30M a year.
thanks Roy for this informative article. :)
kheldar52077 - January 27, 2012
My opinion - whatever it is worth
1.) I agree with Roy’s preferred option of one year deals with Bass, Ray and KG – no to Green in my book
2.) I think (and I know I am in the minority!!!) that Dwight is not worth the money he will demand. He just does not impress me like other elite players do. One wrong step and you have an injured and very expensive big man that eats up lots of cap space who actually may not be very “tough” at playing hurt.
3.) Paying JO $6 million and whatever Sheed got paid was money I wish we would have spent somewhere else on younger BUILDING BLOCKS than creaky old men who have been overpaid.
4.) Agree with Wildblu …this CBA is like the US Tax Code…..no wonder players need agents and lawyers. It’s absurd.
5.) Roy ….you really do this site a big favor by just being your smart and articulate self – thank you.
Master Po - January 27, 2012
Thanks, Po.
And thanks to everyone else who complimented the article, as well. It’s appreciated.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Yes, Thanks Roy
This is a much needed post, and you did an excellent job
GreenSlime - January 28, 2012 via mobile
#3 I agree with
I really wish we had gone after a younger center. JO is frustrating to watch. One game he’s in, two games he’s out.
vgarcia890 - January 27, 2012
hah
I’ve started like three threads basically saying the same exact thing, but without the “cap hold” details. Also, I wasn’t aware the salary cap was going from 58 to 61….
Regardless the point still stands. 25 mil in cap space. You give Dwight 18-20 of that. At some point (unless you are giving them the vet minimum), you need to say goodbye to Jeff Green, KG, Ray and Bass.
Glad it was finally put on the front page so everyone can get a reality check.
Roy… what’s your take on the frequent lie about us having enough room to sign “two max contract guys”?
LarBrd33 - January 27, 2012
I think people who think we have room to sign two max free agents...
… either:
1) Don’t understand the rules;
2) Listen to Gary Tanguay too much; or
3) Are assuming we’ll dump Pierce and/or Rondo.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Wyc himself specifically said it multiple times during a broadcast a couple games ago. He kept claiming we’d have enough cap room to bring in two max contracts. Why would the owner of the franchise be that out of touch?… do you think he honestly believes that (incorrectly), or is he just blowing smoke and selling tickets?
LarBrd33 - January 27, 2012
i heard that too
it was either the wizards game or the 1st orlando game i believe
craziness@analltimehigh - January 27, 2012
Roy, great job!
This must take a lot of work. Thank you very much! One area I feel the C’s need to look at is the 2 guard spot. They will need to have scoring out of that position unless they think that they have enough with Pierce and Howard (assuming they snag him). I suppose Gordon is a possibility though an offer we make can be matched. I don’t know who else is out there. Maybe someone else can list the options for that position. Howard has everything in limbo for us. I’m thinking Ainge may hold off on any serious moves if they effect this summer’s cap space so he can chase Dwight. Assuming we don’t get him, I understand the idea of holding off on big contracts and just wait for another year or two. The problem is that the landscape may not be any different in two years. Boston will probably never be the preferred destination of choice. Ainge may be better served just trying to put the best possible all around team together and take his chances as Wildbu1 stated. You can question any major target as to their strengths and flaws and whether we are better served chasing them or not. Howard is a great defensive athlete. His offense is coming along. Someone said he took one shot in the 4th quarter yesterday? Is that his fault or his teammates? I still guess I’m hoping we can land him but like us all, I want to see us be retooled so that we can compete at the highest level. That starts with defense and teamwork so whoever fits those parameters is who I want Ainge to go after. Again, awesome job Roy. You are such an asset with your knowledge! Thank you.
celty86 - January 27, 2012
Thanks. This is less than half as big as the version I've done in years past...
But this one is more targeted just at free agency.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Can anyone with knowledge about the subject answer this.
IS it viable for the Celtics to sign Kenyon Martin and/or Aaron Brooks once their season in China is over?
1 year deals of course, but could the Celts sure up the bench with either of these two players?
SoxAcumen - January 27, 2012
We'll be able to offer a pro-rated share of the vet minimum...
Hard to say whether that will be enough to get it done, but other teams will have more money. Also, I believe Brooks is restricted, meaning Phoenix can match any offer he gets.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Cool thanks Hobbs
Nice work BTW, very informative.
SoxAcumen - January 27, 2012
This is a tough pill to swallow
After reading this, even with KG and Ray signing for much less money, I’m not sure we could afford to even keep this team together next year, much less improve it. Do you agree with this, Hobbs? We couldn’t actually afford to bring Green, Bass, KG, and Ray Allen all back unless they all take at least a few million less than they’re worth. Do you agree with that, Hobbs?
sofutomygaha - January 27, 2012
do you?
sofutomygaha - January 27, 2012
hobbs?
sofutomygaha - January 27, 2012
We could bring our own team back...
With our own free agents, so long as they don’t have to be renounced we can use “Bird Rights” to exceed the salary cap. So, we’ll have a lot more flexibility if we go that route.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
financial flexibility, yes
but personnel flexibility, no. It seems like the former isn’t worth much for an older team like ours if it doesn’t give you the latter.
sofutomygaha - January 28, 2012
this may be a dumb question
but is it possible, in principle, to amnesty a player and then trade for him, effectively laundering the difference between his salary and his highest bid?
sofutomygaha - January 28, 2012
Also remember
The Celts have 2 first round draft picks in a deep draft who can help out next season.
SoxAcumen - January 27, 2012
it is an important thing to remember
because as it stands now, we’ll enter next year with 3 rooks (two 1st rd picks, one 2nd) and 3 guys all with less than a full season of service time (Smooge, JJ & AB).
That’s 6 guys of the allowed 15-man roster that will be very, very young.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
Do you think DA is brewing another
BLOCKBUSTER TRADE?
kheldar52077 - January 27, 2012
It's always possible.
I refuse to try to predict what Danny will do. He is aware of far more info than any of us.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
Did not think of it like that
Excellent. I just really like this draft in terms of talent and signing a guy like Tyler Zeller (7’0" big who can run and shoot) would be a very solid and cheap addition to an aging Celtic team.
SoxAcumen - January 27, 2012
I don't think Danny would fill the roster with 3 draft picks
Dunno what he will do, but if it were me, I’d probably be looking at the Rubios and Euro young Big Men I could bury for a year and two. In other words, a Semi Erden type, but on steroids.
If the big men of high potential do not exist in this years Euro draft scenario, I would be looking to trade up this year, or perhaps better, for next year. I cannot see Doc being happy with 3 draft picks, while keeping KG, PP, RA, Rondo etc happy with their minutes.
Dipper - January 28, 2012
And add my thanks to Roy Hobbs
for his outstanding article.
Dipper - January 28, 2012
Roy, what about the long provision?
I remember reading about a new thing in the CBA where teams could spread players contracts beyond years they are signed.
pp34isthe1 - January 27, 2012
This doesn't really help us...
It’s called the “stretch” provision. For players signed last summer or later, you can waive them, and stretch out the hit on your salary cap. The formula is that the contract must be off your hit within two times the amount remaining on the contract, plus one additional year.
So, let’s say there’s a 2 year, $20 million contract. Instead of (let’s say) the current $10 million per year cap hit, the team can stretch that over 5 years (2 years remaining x 2, + 1 = 5). Therefore, the cap hit is $4 million, rather than $10 million, per year (but it’s over a longer time period).
Again, though, it doesn’t apply to guys who were signed prior to last summer.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Thanks for the clarification Roy
pp34isthe1 - January 27, 2012
Howard?
One thing I was thinking is that if we did everything we could do to land Dwight and had to renounce people and all would we be any better of a team than what Orlando is now with Howard?
celty86 - January 27, 2012
excellent point and
knows this.
tstorey1 - January 27, 2012
we would have potential to improve our roster to championship level
over the next couple years if we could land Howard. If we sign KG and Ray to reasonable contracts, we shall be in good shape next year as well. The magic, with so many bad contracts under belt, most likely would not be able get much better and right now they are like light years away from winning it all.
Karasu - January 27, 2012
Solid article...thank you...my point is what will Danny do?
Our views vary significantly from his.
He wants a young athletic team to bat Miami, Bulls, OKC etc. Today’s team with Dwight is not what Danny wants. My point is why not look at LIKELY scenarios instead of worrying about Ray and KG who may not be resigned.
Will Dwight wait for Danny’s $18M? The list of teams with space is important but, ANY team can make the trades that would secure Howard.
The Lakers are major competitors for Howard. They HAD Chris Paul on their roster a couple of months ago…remember?
If we look at the deals we “want” we are not looking at the deals Danny wants. Does he want Rondo? Does he want PP? They are the two chips for next years rebuild.
Do you honestly think Danny wants to pay 35 yr old Paul Pierce $16M next year? That is a lot of money to a player who is not the future for the C’s. I want Pierce, does Danny?
Lastly….My guess is the Lakers can do more to get Howard than Danny. BTW? The Magic Suk.
tstorey1 - January 27, 2012
Who knows what Danny wants, though?
In my view, bringing back the same team + Dwight Howard would be fantastic, and I guess that Danny would be ecstatic about that outcome. However, when you look at our situation, you see it’s not necessarily realistic. You’d probably have to get KG and Ray to come back on minimum deals, and even then you’d only be able to sign one of Bass or Green.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Great article Roy...
My two cents. If Dwight decides that he wants to be in Boston it will be because Ainge has pitched him on what it will take to win a championship. To me that means that Dwight would have to be willing to take a “little” less in his contract in order for the Celtics to be able to fill out the roster. Correct me if I’m wrong but is this not what Lebron, Bosh and Wade did? It sounds silly on the surface for Howard to sign for slightly less but then, doesn’t it sound silly that he’ll choose the Celtics in the first place?
Ray is a guy who’s going to want to get paid, IMO. He won’t accept the minimum because he is likely going to be playing for a while longer and would probably like to see a multi-year deal come his way. Ray also happens to be very expendable for this team. I’d like to see Ainge move him at the deadline and remove any need to sign him in the offseason.
With KG being much closer to retirement I could see him settling for making a lot less money for the benefit of the team.
The tough decisions will come down to Pietrus, Green and Bass. All three of those guys are very valuable role players who I’d personally like to keep if at all possible. But Ainge would have to be REALLY lucky for that to happen.
IanMello - January 27, 2012
Issues...
25 million to sign Dwight, Bass, Pietrus, KG, Ray, and Jeff Green…..somebodies walking.
Sarcazmo's Funhouse - January 27, 2012
dear roy
This article rules. You da man.
dobbs - January 27, 2012
i say we re sign stiemsma to small contract though he wont want to
EXER123 - January 27, 2012
So we have about 9 million in luxury tax so far this year?
If things go downhill, when is the latest we can amnesty KG and not have his 21 million count towards thew cap?
Also, if we trade him at the deadline (half way through the season) and get no salary back, then he would only count about 10 million towards the cap, instead of 21? Am I right?
I ask this because I have been studying ways to clear salary as to avoid luxury tax this year and next year. I think that has to be part of the reloading process.
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
Sorry for the incomplete but...
Since 22 out of 82 regular season games were missed this year; I assume KG isn’t getting paid his full 21 million.
If that’s the case, would his cap hit be more like 18 million this year? Thanks in advance.
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
I apologize 16 out of 22.
Make that 16. right?
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
It's too late to amnesty KG for this year...
If we trade KG prior to the end of the season and don’t take any salary, we wouldn’t owe any luxury tax on his salary (this is very unlikely, however). Luxury tax is only paid on the team’s year end salary.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
In theory, what are the salary cap/luxury tax ramnifications if KG got injured exactly 25% of the way through the season?
Would only 25% of his salary count for luxury tax purposes? Just trying to understand this stuff.
Thanks for your reply.
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
Injured players continue to count against the cap and the tax...
Players forced to retire can be an exception, but that requires a one year waiting period before any cap relief.
We could get financial relief by insurance paying KG’s salary, but it wouldn’t help our cap obligations.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
why?
In which way do you think not counting KG’s salary benefits us? Apart from not paying luxury tax. Are you Wyc’s son? ;D
isaacgobo - January 27, 2012
It benefits us because it makes it easier to reload.
We don’t want to get caught paying tax 4 out of 5 years because the repeat penalty is serious. Repeat tax will hinder our ability to offer max contracts 2 and 3 years down the road.
If we’re not winning a championship this yyear (and let’s be honest…..), then why not clear salary and get younger.
Not paying luxury tax this year and next year frees us up to pay luxury tax THREE YEARS in a row without as harsh penalties.
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
Hum.
Now I get you. Have to say it’s well thought.
But I think we are not going to be tax payers next couple years. Definetly not next year. We’ll be under cup and unable to use MLE or resign with bird rights. At least that shall be the plan IMO.
Then in next season we’ll amnesty Paul Pierce or he’ll retire, so we’ll be again under the cap. Can’t see a way to get on tax zone being previously under the cap, but I could be wrong…
isaacgobo - January 27, 2012
Whew. I'm glad someone gets me.
I thought maybe I misunderstood the CBA or was missing something.
I had to get in argument with some dude on a different thread and somehow I just couldn’t get him to see what I was saying.
Ya so anyhow, severe luxury tax penalties kick in about 2 years; so all I am saying is let’s get ahead of the Mavs Lakers and Heat on this one.
I’m not Wyc’s son (but I don’t see him regularly paying 25-30 million luxury tax a year so NOW is the time to clear the books.)
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
It was a nice work thinking about that
Felt sorry to not get it earlier. Read that part of the cba weeks ago but just forgot about it. Heard something about Mark Cuban talking about that too.
But I still think we should not be tax payers the next following seasons anyway, as we shall be patient before commiting long term to FA’s
isaacgobo - January 27, 2012
Ok thanks.
Ya this cba stuff is almost like doing your taxes. lol
florida dodger - January 27, 2012
What if Danny executes a S/T for Green and a #1 to Utah for Okur's 10m TE?
Would it be palatable then to pick up the Bass option and use the available cash to sign two max guys( D. Will/ DH) or perhaps DH and resign KG and Ray to a 4m one year deal?
Before the trade deadline offer Denver Wilcox/Sasha and a #2 for J.R. Smith or JO’s expiring contract and a #2
RR/Bradley
Smith/Ray/Moore
Pierce
KG/Bass/JJ
Howard
PortCelt - January 27, 2012
The trade exception counts against the cap just like $10 million in salary would...
… meaning we’d have to renounce it to get the corresponding cap room.
Also, we don’t have the right to pick up Bass’ option; it’s a player, rather than a team, option.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Roy.... in terms of overpaying a player or player(s) and/or tying up too much cap space, what do you think (in the last 5 years) are Danny's worst moves
In other words what could he have done better after signing KG and Ray in your opinion.
Master Po - January 27, 2012
This goes beyond my expertise...
… but since the 2008 season, I actually haven’t minded most of the contracts Danny has given out. The off-season of 2008 was horrible, but that didn’t hurt long-term. In 2009, Rasheed made sense, and in 2010, I understood the Jermaine deal at the time.
I think Danny’s worst mistake since that time, actually, was a deal he didn’t give: Tony Allen’s. He didn’t want to give Tony another year since it would compromise our cap space. In hindsight, that extra $3.3 million on Tony’s contract wouldn’t have hurt too much. In the interim, we were forced to trade for Jeff Green because we didn’t have anybody who could play SF, which cost us Perk, which (in my humble opinion) cost us a title shot last year. Give us Tony, and things play out completely differently, I think.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
I have a hard time with that last one -
Danny had Daniels as an option that would expire at the end of the season instead of Tony, wanting multiple years. At the time, Daniels was easily a better offensive player and arguably just as good defensively as Tony. And through 2/3 of the season, it looked like a great decision as Daniels was playing great for us – until he got injured. But you can’t blame Danny for that injury.
Further, Tony made it very well known that not only did he want the extra year, he wanted to be a starter. How on earth could Danny ever give in to that on a team with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen?
Tony left because of his own choices, not because of Danny’s.
Sure the outcome was not good. Daniels’ injury was one of the reasons to having to trade Perk (the injuries to Perk & the other centers was the other part of the reasoning).
But Danny’s reasoning for ‘letting Tony go’ was not, imho a mistake or poor decision on his part. Danny could not possibly foresee the injuries to, not just Shaq & Jermaine, but also to Daniels, Perk, Semih, BBD & Delonte’. Take away any ONE of those injuries and odds are we might not have had to make the trade.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
Very true- could anyone have foreseen that literally 2/3 of the roster would be decimated by injuries in such a short span of time?
lygafe - January 27, 2012
I disagree that Marquis was ever "clearly the better offensive player"...
Also, Tony made it clear that his first choice was Boston. The “bigger role” stuff came later, as a means of saving face.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Even if we agree to disagree on that
the fact is, that given that he had Daniels already on an expiring contract, and Tony wanted the extra year – which would have eaten into our coming cap, however small you want to make that 3M sound – how could it be a bad decision on Danny’s part to hold the line with what he offered?
The decision to not offer Tony what he wanted is NOT the decision to trade Perk. Your reasoning in your comment up above derives a chain connecting them as if they were one. But they are not. The decision to trade Perk was driven by a multitude of factors, many far outside of Danny’s control.
It isn’t even really obvious that retaining Perk would have definitively resulted in a title.
So to derive a chain that goes from the decision to not extend Tony Allen all the way to our failure to win the title is …. stretching things a bit.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
I'm still confused on the TA situation
He got $10M over 3 years. What if Danny had given him $10M over 2 years instead? Wouldn’t that have been unambiguously better? I’ve discussed this with someone here before (Roy?) who said that TA needed the 3rd year more than he needed the money, and maybe that’s true. It’s just hard to imagine (if TA really liked playing in Boston, for Doc, etc.) that TAllen would go for $10M over 3 years instead of $10M over 2.
dslack - January 27, 2012
Conceivably though we could sign DH and have enough room for Garnett and Ray
I forgot Bass had the player option, but would he stay knowing he’d play 25+ a night with Howard and the nucleus?
If they could land a scorer who can create off the dribble like Smith for a 3yr/17m deal with yr 3 being an out clause I’d say we’re in pretty good shape as long as KG/Ray aren’t extended for more than a year.
PortCelt - January 27, 2012
Great stuff Roy, thanks.
Jimmy Toscano - January 27, 2012
A very interesting and informative article. I'm just glad that I don't have to do the math.
You’ve managed to give us a very clear picture of what a GM like Danny Ainge has to go through in order to try to juggle a roster, to remain competitive while trying to build for the future, without going too far over the luxury tax level.
It’s a daunting task, and I give full credit to D.A. for most of the moves he’s made in the past few years, given the restrictions that he’s had to work with, and what he’ll potentially have to work with in the next year- three years.
Lygafe.
Lionel Gaffen / Fotomix.
lygafe - January 27, 2012
I believe they'll keep Green
Provided they are not satisfied with draft picks potential to impact the team.
My guess is that they will attempt to convince Dwight that just because he is eligible for 18-20 million starting, doesn’t mean he has to take it.
Howard has talked about winning and the president for taking less was set by MIA. If it means the difference between keeping the big 4 together and having another young core piece for the future, post GPA, I think he listens. He could even sign a 3 year deal and re-up for “max max” after. It makes some sense for him because of his age and to sync up his contract with the rest of the team.
If he has to have the “max max” now, I’d be fully prepared to tell Ray & KG that the best team in the league will require sacrafice – one or both will have to accommodate signing Green by sacrificing salary on a one year deal. Boston can give them “makeup” contracts the following year – 3 year deals at manageable money so if they are waived or retire the cap “stretch” doesn’t kill the cap money.
KG and Ray might not agree to et minimum deals in a vacuum but I’d think that both would agree to an understanding like that due to their relationship with the organization, their financial status, and the period in their career – they wouldn’t be giving up money, just giving up how much they receive in year one.
I don’t see a scenario where Boston doesn’t bring Green back unless they have a young SF targeted. Boston needs to sell Dwight on a present AND a future if they want a chance at signing him. Green & Rondo are the only proven young players on the team.
The scenario above is the type of “between the lines” negotiating that gets the job done – it’s why Walace and Shaq are still getting paid and it’s why Pierce was given a 4th year on his deal.
I expect all the personnel involved in this courtship to be involved and on the same page – its not going to be poorly orchestrated, I promise you that.
BillfromBoston - January 27, 2012 via mobile
yes, this makes a lot of sense
and obviously depends on how much each of these players truly values ‘winning’ over money.
If they all choose ‘winning’ over ‘money’, then we would be setup to have an awesome team next year. Even an aging Ray & KG, combined with Rondo, Paul and D12 is a fantastic 5-man unit that would be dominant. Add to that a supporting cast of Green and the emerging talents of all the youngsters (and three new picks this summer) and that’s a pretty impressive team.
The odd man out, unfortunately, might be Bass. I don’t see how he could justify to his family taking his player option. He has to decline it and will certainly score a much bigger contract. And depending on what else happens, the probability is high that we won’t be the team that can pay that to him.
mmmmm - January 27, 2012
Before I read this post I wrote something similar above.
If Howard decides Boston is the place to be I absolutely see him taking less money. He’ll make some of that money back in bonuses for going deep into the playoffs. And of course championship rings are priceless! ;)
I also agree with you on Jeff Green. Gotta find a way to hang onto Green and it’s possible you could do it cheaply on a one year deal with a player option.
The room exception could be used on Pietrus, who I believe is an extremely valuable player.
It’d hurt to lose Bass in this scenario but you’d have to hope Ainge would be able to find his replacement with one of those two first rounders.
IanMello - January 27, 2012
is it safe to say
that among the contenders, we have the largest cap room? do the mavs have bigger cap room than us? what will be our advantage against other contenders?
ball is green - January 27, 2012
The Mavs can get more than us, if they can trade Marion for no salary, I believe...
… and amnesty Haywood, cut Odom, etc. It will be close, anyway.
Roy_Hobbs - January 27, 2012
Yeah, Dirk gets a raise to almost 21 next year(22.7 the next), both Marion and Hayword are at near 8.5(so is Odoms team op), and 3 players totalling 4.5. They would have some whealing and dealing to do to free up the space, it’s seems nearly impossible to me for them to get both Deron and Howard. I honestly would just play the waiting game. If New Jersey gets Howard I would say make a play for Lopez. It’s just too hard to make any predictions because so many senarios could play out, you never know who could be available in the summer because some teams could decide to go different ways and future restriced free agents might become available also.
Drew Berg - January 27, 2012
I'm not a big Howard fan and wouldnt do a max contract for him.
Did you watch the last two games of Magic vs C’s? When Garnet played center, he outplayed Howard! Howard is also a cry baby, can’t keep his mouth shut – badmouthing his teammates in both local and national media regularly- picks up dumb fouls and dumb technicals. I’m also not all excited about Deron Williams. Maybe I’ve just seen him play on bad days, but Rondo (when he wants to) seems to outplay Williams.
Dipper - January 28, 2012
Howard is flawed, but he is a legit star...
… who basically guarantees that you’ll have a top 4 team in the Conference. I’d take him in a heartbeat.
Roy_Hobbs - January 28, 2012
Do we have enough money to go after Tom Guggliotta? We had once; why not twice? He cant have detiriorated much more than how he was the first time we went wholeheartedly after him…..
Dantenina - February 7, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of CelticsBlog to post a comment.